RIMS System plans

I have been working on a 10 gallon brewing system design and I want to plan everything out before I start buying parts etc.

Here is what I want to end up with. 10 gallon output, all grain, electronically controlled, as simple and efficient as possible.

I am looking at building a RIMS system using only two pots. Only 1 pot needs to be heated (gas or electricity, havent decided)

Here is what I laid out as the step by step process to try to see if I had things connected right and the process laid out the right way.



So with this in mind I have a few questions.

1. Am I missing something?
2. Can this be made more simple that it is (without removing the key pieces like electronic control)?
3. Recommendations on heating the HLT/kettle, only one pot needs to be heated in this case, and much of the system is already electric. Natural Gas is the only other option available.
4. Can anyone make part recommendations for the electronic valves and some kind of flow meter that can handle the high beer temps?

Please feel free to leave any comments or suggestions. (yes I know I can do all grain easier than RIMS etc but I am looking to build complete automated control and therefor need as few hose changes, part swapping etc as possible. )

The way I see your system you will be doing a no-sparge style lauter. This will likely effect your efficiency quite significantly, although some people believe it produces a higher quality wort. Just making sure you have considered this.

This reminds me of the Brutus 20...

The no sparge thing will affect the eff. to a pretty large degree.

So what your both saying is that by having all the water in the grains at one time then dumping it out in one batch back into the kettle I will not get as much sugars etc as if I have a 3 vessel system which continues to add fresh hot water to the top of the grain bed while "sparging out" into the kettle. Does this have to do with the amount of water or is there another reason?

blackheart said:

So what your both saying is that by having all the water in the grains at one time then dumping it out in one batch back into the kettle I will not get as much sugars etc as if I have a 3 vessel system which continues to add fresh hot water to the top of the grain bed while "sparging out" into the kettle. Does this have to do with the amount of water or is there another reason?

Click to expand...

Nope, it is the dirty laundry theory.

If you soak your clothes in soapy water, then just drain the water out... isnt there still a lot of soap in the clothing? Yes, so you rinse it.

This is the same thing with grain... you can drain it, but there is still a lot of sugars that need to be rinsed from the grain bed.

This is a core component of all-grain brewing. The sparge and lauter. You can get great conversion efficiency, but the lauter efficiency will hurt you if you do not do it effectively. If you are going for an "efficient" system, Id look for a way to at least batch sparge.

Otherwise on a typical 10 gallon batch, you will be using about 5 to 7 POUNDS more malt to hit the same OG that you would if you did an effective sparge... that is A LOT

You can expect to get about 60-65% eff. Whereas I get about 82% eff., as do many others, with an effective sparge.

blackheart said:

So what your both saying is that by having all the water in the grains at one time then dumping it out in one batch back into the kettle I will not get as much sugars etc as if I have a 3 vessel system which continues to add fresh hot water to the top of the grain bed while "sparging out" into the kettle. Does this have to do with the amount of water or is there another reason?

Click to expand...

The "sparge" helps to rinse the remaining sugars from the grain. If you add all of the water at once during the mash, you will have a very thin mash. You can keep a normal mash ratio, but you'll need to greatly increase the amount of grains, which isn't really efficient.

I suspect you may run into grain compaction issues as well, if you have 10-11 gallons of water above the top of the grain bed, but I'm not sure on that. You'll also need to have a mashtun big enough to hold everything, probably 15 or so gallons of water + the grain.

Is there a purpose for only using 2 vessels, or were you trying to do this with the least amount of equipment?

HomebrewJeff said:

The "sparge" helps to rinse the remaining sugars from the grain. If you add all of the water at once during the mash, you will have a very thin mash. You can keep a normal mash ratio, but you'll need to greatly increase the amount of grains, which isn't really efficient.

I suspect you may run into grain compaction issues as well, if you have 10-11 gallons of water above the top of the grain bed, but I'm not sure on that. You'll also need to have a mashtun big enough to hold everything, probably 15 or so gallons of water + the grain.

Is there a purpose for only using 2 vessels, or were you trying to do this with the least amount of equipment?

Click to expand...

Awesome point...
I ran this through ProMash... even if you have NO fluid loss in your system, which is unlikely... but lets just say no fluid loss, and a 1.5 gallon boil off...

Your MLT will have to hold 17.5 gallons of MASH and WATER for a 1.053 beer to get 10 gallons into the fermentor.

So not only will you have bad eff. but you will need a MINIMUM of a 20 gallon MLT to hold the grain and water.

In the above scenario you are using 25.6 pounds of grain, 15.4 gallons of water, total mash volume of 17.5 gallons. There will be 3 gallons lost to grain absorption, 1.5 gallons boiled off over 60 minutes, and wort shrinkage of about .4 gallons of volume when the wort cools. This only gets you an OG of 1.053 too...

IF you used 15.5 gallon keggles for the vessels on this thing, here is what youd be able to do.

MAX grain bill 17.6 pounds
MAX water 14 gallons
MLT Volume for this brew is 15.5 gallons
Grain absorption of 2.0 gallons
Boil off of 1.50 gallons
Wort shrinkage of .4 gallons
10 gallons to the fermentor.

Assuming 65% eff. (which Id think is pretty generous in a no sparge system) you will get a MAX OG of 1.039 on a 10 gallon brew

IF you wanted to be able to get up to a 1.075 (not often, but it would be nice) beer you would need to have at LEAST a 20 gallon MLT to hold the grain and all of the water at 65% eff.

But, FWIW, if you are making a RIMS, you might as well heat your HLT with electric... it is easy and clean and quiet and easy to control.

The Pol said:

Nope, it is the dirty laundry theory.
The above is based on what I have heard about the Brutus 20 which is no sparge, and it gets about 60-65% eff. Whereas I get about 82% eff., as do many others, with an effective sparge.

Click to expand...

I have written about this somewhere here before...

Brutus 20 is not a no sparge system. It is a cross continuos re-sparge heated mash gadget system... How's that for words! Brutus 20 has (had) a normal mash with a set ratio (- absorption), and a set ratio of fresh sparge water (= boil volume). It worked (works) very cool on lighter beers, not so much for the big beers as it goes beyond the dirty laundry theory...

Although it will not achieve my dead-locked 87% I get on the Ten, it can and usually does exceed 65... It is a matter of what you are brewing. Although the dirty laundry theory is in play, there is also a matter of total saturation to deal with. What is designed above is a no sparge system for sure, and to go that route would indeed require dang near twice the malt and space as our normal get-ups... At todays prices, as least I can't afford to be doubling up on my malt bill!

Lonnie Mac said:

I have written about this somewhere here before...

Brutus 20 is not a no sparge system. It is a cross continuos re-sparge heated mash gadget system... How's that for words! Brutus 20 has (had) a normal mash with a set ratio (- absorption), and a set ratio of fresh sparge water (= boil volume). It worked (works) very cool on lighter beers, not so much for the big beers as it goes beyond the dirty laundry theory...

Although it will not achieve my dead-locked 87% I get on the Ten, it can and usually does exceed 65... It is a matter of what you are brewing. Although the dirty laundry theory is in play, there is also a matter of total saturation to deal with. What is designed above is a no sparge system for sure, and to go that route would indeed require dang near twice the malt and space as our normal get-ups... At todays prices, as least I can't afford to be doubling up on my malt bill!

Click to expand...

True true... I know this, it reminds me of the Brutus 20.... not the same, no, but reminds me of it. The size of the MLT will have to be huge, and using 5-7 more pounds of malt (OR MORE) to compensate for the lack of a sparge seems counter productive.

I am all for trying new things, but I dont see the gain.

The Pol said:

True true... I know this, it reminds me of the Brutus 20.... not the same, no, but reminds me of it. The size of the MLT will have to be huge, and using 5-7 more pounds of malt to compensate for the lack of a sparge seems counter productive.

I am all for trying new things, but I dont see the gain.

Click to expand...

At this point, I don't think that there is a gain!

I still fool around with the 20 idea, it can make some great beers, but what it really comes down to is money! Any system can achieve 100% efficiency (per say) as long as we add more malt to the grain bill. The system in the OP simply will not do that as you say productively... But productive is the perspective of the OP... If money and space were no object, I suppose I wouldn't mind grinding dang near a sack of malt for a 10 gallon batch!

Just kidding... I just can't do it though...

But at the very same time I should confess, efficiency has NEVER been high on my list of things to be concerned about...

Lonnie Mac said:

At this point, I don't think that there is a gain!

I still fool around with the 20 idea, it can make some great beers, but what it really comes down to is money! Any system can achieve 100% efficiency (per say) as long as we add more malt to the grain bill. The system in the OP simply will not do that as you say productively... But productive is the perspective of the OP... If money and space were no object, I suppose I wouldn't mind grinding dang near a sack of malt for a 10 gallon batch!

Just kidding... I just can't do it though...

But at the very same time I should confess, efficiency has NEVER been high on my list of things to be concerned about...

Click to expand...

I agree here Lonnie, and I repsect your opinions on this. Efficiency is a number, and being consistent is the priority. BUT, I have to say that I would not set out to build a rig that will limit me to 50%-60% eff. to begin with. When I build I want consistency, efficiency and economy... economy including achieving a reasonable level of eff. so that I dont blow money on malt which is unnecessary.

The Pol said:

I agree here Lonnie, and I repsect your opinions on this. Efficiency is a number, and being consistent is the priority. BUT, I have to say that I would not set out to build a rig that will limit me to 50%-60% eff. to begin with. When I build I want consistency, efficiency and economy... economy including achieving a reasonable level of eff. so that I dont blow money on malt which is unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Can't agree more brotha...

Brew on...

But what if Blackheart invested in large enough tuns (once off) and then in effect sparged rather than no sparged with this setup by:
-Mash with regular amount of mash water volume.
-End of mash, slowly deposit all the sparge water on top of the mash from the HLT/Kettle, not disturbing it, and resulting in a gradient of very sweet wort at bottom and just water at the top. This leaves the HLT/Kettle free.
-Slowly slowly (and this is probably the main downside) run off the liquor, effectively doing a fly-sparge into the kettle.
Probably not as efficient as a drain then fly-sparge approach, but probably not that far behind, if the gradient is maintained so that sweetness is drawn from the grain by the plain water
???.

I see 70-80% efficiency in my countertop Brutus 20, across all styles. It really is an ideal setup for small-batch brewing.

jkarp said:

I see 70-80% efficiency in my countertop Brutus 20, across all styles. It really is an ideal setup for small-batch brewing.

Click to expand...

I think Lonnie is the inventor of the Brutus 10 and 20... if he sayes the eff. is poor on the 20, I believe him. This system in the OP is wholly no sparge, and this has been tried before on this scale with anywhere from 50% to 65% eff.

Since this guy is looking to do 10 gallon batches, IMHO he needs to find a way to effectively lauter that grain. Many people 80%-90% of them, only get 70% to 80% eff. even when they DO sparge. I personally find it hard to believe that on a 5 or 10 gallon system that one could reach the SAME eff. with a no sparge as they can with a typical system that sparges.

But, as with anything else, I think the OP should give it a shot, but he will need a MIN of 20 gallon MLT. He can brew a couple brews, check the eff. and if it is too low, he can add another kettle easily.

Yorg, I don't think you can effectively layer the entire sparge on top of the mash and expect it to stay stratified. The sugar is going to start diffusing in immediately and it will take time to get it all in there under the suggested "careful" movement of the water. It would probably yield slightly better efficiency than a deliberately equalized brutus 20 style, but I don't see a big advantage over adding a 3rd vessel. That's also a lot of weight on top of the mash. Wouldn't you get crazy compaction? Hey, you can catch the runnings in an ale pail on this system until the HLT is empty too.

The Pol said:

I think Lonnie is the inventor of the Brutus 10 and 20... if he sayes the eff. is poor on the 20, I believe him.

Click to expand...

You're quite the character Pol. I'm pretty sure if I said the sky was blue, you'd find a way to argue the point.

I know perfectly well who Lonnie is. I owe many great beers to his design. I'm simply pointing out that with an additional pump (or simply use gravity between the MLT and kettle as I do) the OP could have a Brutus 20.

Significant efficiency improvements in a 20 setup can be made by mashing thin and doing a good hot mashout. I do however share Lonnie's philosophy that efficiency is overrated. The quality of my beers increased dramatically when I quit playing the numbers game and just focused on making great wort instead.

jkarp said:

You're quite the character Pol. I'm pretty sure if I said the sky was blue, you'd find a way to argue the point.

I know perfectly well who Lonnie is. I owe many great beers to his design. I'm simply pointing out that with an additional pump (or simply use gravity between the MLT and kettle as I do) the OP could have a Brutus 20.

Significant efficiency improvements in a 20 setup can be made by mashing thin and doing a good hot mashout. I do however share Lonnie's philosophy that efficiency is overrated. The quality of my beers increased dramatically when I quit playing the numbers game and just focused on making great wort instead.

Click to expand...

I am not arguing with you brother, just making a point that the 20 doesnt get 80% eff. And the OP should not assume that a no sparge system will either. I was under the assumption that the 20 already utilized a hot mashout, so that was already figured into Lonnies eff. #'s. I could be wrong.

Eff. is overrated, but one does not have to "try" to get 80% eff. It comes pretty easily. My point, as Lonnie and I agreed on, was that limiting ones self to 50%-60% on a system build from the get go, may not make much sense.

How does a thin mash in the 20 affect the lauter eff., or is this simply improving the conversion eff.?

I still say built the OP rig as is... and check it out. People tell me all the time that my ideas wont work, but they do... these are just opinions that the OP asked for, but he can still build a 2 kettle system, get some data, and go from there.

jkarp said:

I do however share Lonnie's philosophy that efficiency is overrated. The quality of my beers increased dramatically when I quit playing the numbers game and just focused on making great wort instead.

Click to expand...

+10 I've never been impressed with high efficiency claims and generally don't believe them anyway. It's the end product that counts.

The Pol said:

Hardly. My point was that I dont want the OP to incorrectly assume 70-80% eff. on the system described when the Brutus 20 doesnt do that even with its hybrid no sparge/batch sparge setup.

Click to expand...

Look. I don't want to get in a pissing contest with you. Lonnie himself, on his very own Brutus 20 page, reported 74% efficiency on average with his system.

You're always ragging on people for speaking from hearsay versus first-hand experience. I refer to your countless recent no-chill threads. Less than 2 months ago, you didn't even know what a Brutus 20 was. I do have considerable experience with the setup and know exactly what it can / can not deliver.

There are some definite advantages to the Brutus 20 system and the OP deserves to hear from experienced users, considering his design is already so close.

jkarp said:

Look. I don't want to get in a pissing contest with you. Lonnie himself, on his very own Brutus 20 page, reported 74% efficiency on average with his system.

You're always ragging on people for speaking from hearsay versus first-hand experience. I refer to your countless recent no-chill threads. Less than 2 months ago, you didn't even know what a Brutus 20 was. I do have considerable experience with the setup and know exactly what it can / can not deliver.

There are some definite advantages to the Brutus 20 system and the OP deserves to hear from experienced users, considering his design is already so close.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why in this thread alone I have said twice... make that now three times. THE OP NEEDS TO BUILD IT AND GET REAL NUMBERS. I already calculated the size of the MLT he will need to do it.

When I am talking 50%-60% that is an opinion, based on the no sparge design in the OP.

There I have said it three times in this thread, build it.... test it, then go from there. Make that 4 times.

FWIW I knew what the Brutus 20 design philosophy was 1.5 YEARS ago... as I considered it and the 10 before I built mine. I assumed that the 20 stood for 20 gallons though, and on that point I was incorrect 2 months ago... good quoting!

I think that the OP design holds a lot of promise. Though without knowing his design philosophy and his NEEDS, it is hard to determine what changes, if any, would suit him.

Every system is based on a set of needs and desires. Fortunately for each brewer these are different, thusly the wide ranging variety of brew rigs. Without really knowing what he NEEDS from his design, other than a 10 gallon output, one cannot really give much direction.

So, to keep this thread somewhat on track, can the OP please give more information about the design philosophy? Can you let us know what you NEED out of the system? What do you want it to give you? With that information, we can get a much better idea of what changes, if any, your design may require, instead of speculating.

I see what your all saying here. I want efficiency and the way to get it is by sparging. And to do that I need 3 pots and 2 pumps (or 2 levels and 1 pump)

If I have to use 3 pots (I was just trying to make the parts and size less complex and smaller) then I might as well go with the HERMS system which can double as a wort chiller/ preheat water for brewing multiple batches.

What do you guys think of my HERMS design?

The Pol said:

I think that the OP design holds a lot of promise. Though without knowing his design philosophy and his NEEDS, it is hard to determine what changes, if any, would suit him.

Every system is based on a set of needs and desires. Fortunately for each brewer these are different, thusly the wide ranging variety of brew rigs. Without really knowing what he NEEDS from his design, other than a 10 gallon output, one cannot really give much direction.

So, to keep this thread somewhat on track, can the OP please give more information about the design philosophy? Can you let us know what you NEED out of the system? What do you want it to give you? With that information, we can get a much better idea of what changes, if any, your design may require, instead of speculating.

Click to expand...

I want efficiency and simplicity(to a point). I see some designs with hoses and connectors going everywhere and clusters of valves which only the builder knows which to turn etc like a puzzle. I want to use as few parts as possible to reduce complexity and cost. I plan on electronically controlling all of the valves, motors, and heat sources. This will add it's own complexity and I want to make sure I have a solid working system before I attempt to electronically control it.

I plan on brewing in 10 gallon batches into 2x 5gal corny's fermenting in a chest freezer which can hold 8-9 corny's. I want to eventually brew 2+ batches in a brewing session so things like the HERMS acting as a wort chiller which then preheats strike water is a good design.

I would go with a 2-tier design if I have to or if I think it is more efficient. (like I dont need the extra pump). Basically anything I can do to reduce the number/complexity of parts while still maintaining control over the system is what I am looking for.

You guys have all left some good suggestions so far. Thanks for all of your input!

You could go with 1 pump 3 vessels and 5 valves all on a single level with gravity drain through cfc or add 2 valves and use same pump through cfc. This approach would pump water to top of mash in steps then switch pump from filling mash tun to draining. It should be a simple build to automate,3 temperature sensors, 1 float switch for mash tun level, and 5 -7 valves for fluid switching.

Catt22 said:

+10 I've never been impressed with high efficiency claims and generally don't believe them anyway. It's the end product that counts.

Click to expand...

You said it my friend!

Yea, I usually can get 75 from my system in the 20 configuration. Not bad at all... I have come up with a few tricks to make that even better but I TRULY could usually give a rats a$$ about eff as long as I am to the point to where I don't think that I am actually wasting money vs making better beer... I am very glad someone is getting some use out of the idea! I have always believed in the opposite end of the dirty laundry theory even more... You can indeed wash too much from your grain bill as well...

Now, we have to loose the CRDFM thing... I must have been drunk naming that! I'm starting to like cross-continuos re-sparge heated mash gadget system much better!

kladue said:

You could go with 1 pump 3 vessels and 5 valves all on a single level with gravity drain through cfc or add 2 valves and use same pump through cfc. This approach would pump water to top of mash in steps then switch pump from filling mash tun to draining. It should be a simple build to automate,3 temperature sensors, 1 float switch for mash tun level, and 5 -7 valves for fluid switching.

Click to expand...

I'm not much of a process engineer, ajd I couldn't make it all happen with just 7 valves, so can you supply a pic or two or a schematic?

Oh, and are you meaning 7 will do a seperate HEX system, or HEX in HLT?

Bobby_M said:

Yorg, I don't think you can effectively layer the entire sparge on top of the mash and expect it to stay stratified. The sugar is going to start diffusing in immediately and it will take time to get it all in there under the suggested "careful" movement of the water. It would probably yield slightly better efficiency than a deliberately equalized brutus 20 style, but I don't see a big advantage over adding a 3rd vessel. That's also a lot of weight on top of the mash. Wouldn't you get crazy compaction? Hey, you can catch the runnings in an ale pail on this system until the HLT is empty too.

Click to expand...

OK, but if Blackheart wanted to keep exploring the two vessel option, how about:
-Free up the HLT/Kettle by gently, but not so slowly depositing sparge water on top of the mash.
-Drain quickly the sweet wort in the lower portion of the tun.
-Slow sparge the rest.

By the way, I don't think the sweet wort would difuse that quickly or regular slow flysparging wouldn't work as it does - progressively delivering sugar from grain, rather than equalising/drawing it from the liquid further down.

But Pol is right. Why don't I try it, and stop speculating.

Yorg, you're right. Try it out. The more I think of it, if you can keep the grainbed from compacting under the weight of the water (to the point you don't stick the runoff) it should work no problem. The limitation is certainly the size of the mash tun which would have to be about twice the size of the desired finished batch.

Blackheart, in order to save one pump, you can either go with two tiers to use gravity for one of the transfer functions in fly sparging or you can keep it all on one level and batch sparge. That's how my system is currently setup though I use no automated temp control at all (not that it couldn't).

I personally don't care for tons of hard plumbing and a matrix of valves that have to be turned just right. That's why I have two hoses on my pump with quick disconnects on everything.

Take the first diagram and change the to fermentor label to boil and you have it. The pump can switch between transfering hot water to top of mash and pumping wort to boil kettle with the level switch controlling switch over.

Bobby_M said:

Yorg, you're right. Try it out. The more I think of it, if you can keep the grainbed from compacting under the weight of the water (to the point you don't stick the runoff) it should work no problem. The limitation is certainly the size of the mash tun which would have to be about twice the size of the desired finished batch.

Blackheart, in order to save one pump, you can either go with two tiers to use gravity for one of the transfer functions in fly sparging or you can keep it all on one level and batch sparge. That's how my system is currently setup though I use no automated temp control at all (not that it couldn't).

I personally don't care for tons of hard plumbing and a matrix of valves that have to be turned just right. That's why I have two hoses on my pump with quick disconnects on everything.

Click to expand...

BLINGO!!!!

There are two ways I can see you keeping your two pot RIMS setup AND getting slightly better efficiency than a no-sparge setup

First Way
1 Drain the first runnings into a pail, this is where the lions share of your sugar is, so take it out of the mix. Recirc the hot water from your HLT/kettle to your MT until it is well mixed, then pump into hlt. Dump first runnings back in and off to the races.

Second Way

Add an elevated cooler above the MLT. Heat your sparge water up in Bk, then pump to cooler and gravity drain in.

Cheers

blackheart, I'd be interested in the reasoning why you moved from RIMS to HERMS? RIMS is arguably less complex, at least from a parts count perspective. This was one of your design goals, correct?

Obviously there have been many threads on RIMS vs. HERMS, I believe both have their strong points.

blackheart said:

I see what your all saying here. I want efficiency and the way to get it is by sparging. And to do that I need 3 pots and 2 pumps (or 2 levels and 1 pump)

If I have to use 3 pots (I was just trying to make the parts and size less complex and smaller) then I might as well go with the HERMS system which can double as a wort chiller/ preheat water for brewing multiple batches.

What do you guys think of my HERMS design?

Click to expand...

Regarding cooling in the HLT, I think that you will find is that you may not be able to reach pitching temp by ice alone. As the wort cools, the cold water will heat up, slowing the cooling ability. You would need to allow for replacing the hot water with more ice / cold water, in addition you probably want some way to agitate the cooling water. Just my $.02.

HomebrewJeff said:

Regarding cooling in the HLT, I think that you will find is that you may not be able to reach pitching temp by ice alone. As the wort cools, the cold water will heat up, slowing the cooling ability. You would need to allow for replacing the hot water with more ice / cold water, in addition you probably want some way to agitate the cooling water. Just my $.02.

Click to expand...

+1 agreed... especially sending it through the coil in the HLT once. Not to mention by the time you try to transfer all of that thermal energy from 10 gallons of boiling wort to an ice bath... the ice bath will get heat saturated and will not be cooling the wort to a large degree.

eccsynd said:

blackheart, I'd be interested in the reasoning why you moved from RIMS to HERMS? RIMS is arguably less complex, at least from a parts count perspective. This was one of your design goals, correct?

Obviously there have been many threads on RIMS vs. HERMS, I believe both have their strong points.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of the HERMS using the coil as both a way to keep the mash at temp and to cool the wort. If I go with Natural Gas then it would also be easier to just use that instead of gas+electric. So if I can make the system more efficient in terms of operation and equipment involved by using the HERMS to at least partially cool the wort then I think I would be better off.

I know that the HLT full of ice water may not cool the wort to the exact temp I need and may require more ice or an additional cooling device. I still think it is a pretty cool idea though.

also I plan on having a motorized stir arm to agitate the HLT (and kettle maybe too) which should help with consistent temps when using the coil.

Joe Camel said:

There are two ways I can see you keeping your two pot RIMS setup AND getting slightly better efficiency than a no-sparge setup

First Way
1 Drain the first runnings into a pail, this is where the lions share of your sugar is, so take it out of the mix. Recirc the hot water from your HLT/kettle to your MT until it is well mixed, then pump into hlt. Dump first runnings back in and off to the races.

Second Way

Add an elevated cooler above the MLT. Heat your sparge water up in Bk, then pump to cooler and gravity drain in.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Er....neither of these is keeping with two vessels though. If you employ a 3rd container, it's a 3 vessel system.

Bobby_M said:

Er....neither of these is keeping with two vessels though. If you employ a 3rd container, it's a 3 vessel system.

Click to expand...

Er... normally I'd leave the nitpicking to the monkeys at the zoo, but....

There are two designs put forth by the OP on this post, a two vessel RIMS and a 3 vessel HERMS. I wasnt describing my design, I was differentiating between his two designs and providing a solution that would improve the design efficiency. If adding a bucket makes it a 3 vessel system, so be it, I'll have to count all my measuring cups but I think I'm up to a 14 vessel https://cdn.homebrewtalk.com/images/smilies/buck.gif

Isn't the OP sorta like brew-in-a-bag? Think about it for a sec. All the grains and water mashed all at once. Difference is how he's maintaining temps (RIMS vs direct heat) and he's transferring before boiling.

I have actually been playing (in my head) with such a system. If you used a grain bag, you could use a finer crush.

Supposedly, with a mash-out, 75% is "normal" for BiaB.

I have a few PM batches that I will try this way (if I get low eff., just throw in some more extract) and report back.