Help me understand something - RIMS/eHERMS Sparge - Page 3 - Home Brew Forums

Register Now!
Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > DIY Projects > Brew Stands > Help me understand something - RIMS/eHERMS Sparge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-23-2010, 06:48 PM   #21
jkarp
 
jkarp's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Jun 2008
Elizabeth, CO
Posts: 2,112
Liked 44 Times on 34 Posts


Remember we're calculating no-sparge goatcheze. Those things all matter because they alter the amount of water going into the system. More water in the system means lower pre-boil gravity and consequently fewer gravity points lost to absorption and deadloss.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 06:49 PM   #22
The Pol
Recipes 
 
Feb 2007
Posts: 11,454
Liked 96 Times on 81 Posts


Everything matters in a no sparge calc. Because water volumes matter, boil off matters, batch size matters etc. % loss is tied to the total wort volume. The smaller that total wort volume, the larger the percentage your losses will be of that volume. Thus, reducing your eff.

Just what Jkarp said.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 06:55 PM   #23
goatchze
Recipes 
 
Nov 2008
College Station, TX
Posts: 108
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by jkarp View Post
Remember we're calculating no-sparge goatcheze. Those things all matter because they alter the amount of water going into the system. More water in the system means lower pre-boil gravity and consequently fewer gravity points lost to absorption and deadloss.
Calculating efficiency is the same regarldess of whether you use 0, 1, or 2 sparges. You are correct that the amount of water "can" affect the efficiency, but I don't think it is in the way you are conveying.

We're talking about a material balance on the sugars (sorry to use engineering terms, it's what I do for a living). Let's take the example:

If i have 8 lbs of 2-row pilsner, it has the "potential" at 100% conversion to produce 37 gravity points/lb-gal. This means that at 100% conversion I could have the following, all giving me 100% efficiency:

1 gallon @ 1.296 (296 x 1 = 296)
2 gallons @ 1.148 (148 x 2 = 296)
5 gallons @ 1.0592 (59.2 x 5 = 296)
10 gallons @ 1.0296 (29.6 x 10 = 296)

All of those would give me 100% efficiency. The volume of water, by itself, doesn't matter. What matters is the gravity with respect to the volume. The boil-off and boil-time have no influence at all.

What matters is the mass of sugars extracted.


 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 06:57 PM   #24
lamarguy
 
lamarguy's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Aug 2008
Austin, TX
Posts: 1,653
Liked 25 Times on 24 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by jkarp View Post
I'm not buying that graph at all. The drop off in no-sparge efficiency is much steeper than it shows.

The actual drop off in efficiency is much closer to:

__________________
Doggfather Brewery

Planned: Lambic, American IPA
Fermenting: 6 gals of 1.090 stout (Belgian) & 6 gals of 1.090 stout (English)
Tapped: Berliner Weisse, Black English IPA, German Pils, & Live Oak Primus


 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:15 PM   #25
jfkriege
Recipes 
 
Aug 2009
Bloomington, IN
Posts: 418
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts


I have looked at the spreadsheet that jkarp used to make that graph. The numbers are sound and well thought out. Besides, the guy has proven his data with his own system and beer that he has actually brewed.

Lamarguy, what is the batch size, evaporation rate, dead loss, and assumed grain absorption rate to make the graph that you keep showing. Until you can tell us how you made that graph, it really doesn't mean anything.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:16 PM   #26
jkarp
 
jkarp's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Jun 2008
Elizabeth, CO
Posts: 2,112
Liked 44 Times on 34 Posts


Yeah, you're still not getting it goatchez. In no-sparge, we must work backwards from the goal. Stick with me here:

Say we want 5 gallons of 1.073 finished wort and want to do a 60 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.

So for total water we will need: 5 gal + (1 hr x .75 gal) + (12 lbs x .125 gal/lb) + .25 gal = 7.5 gal

12 lbs of 37 points/lb-gal = 444 total available points
444 / 7.5 gal = 59.2 or 1.059 pre-boil gravity

Now 1.75 gal of wort will be permanently "lost" in the MLT ( 12 lbs x .125 gal/lb + .25 gal )
1.75 gal * 59.2 = 103.6 gravity points lost in the MLT

(444 - 103.6) / 444 = 76.7% mash efficiency, assuming 100% conversion.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:20 PM   #27
cyberbackpacker
HBT_SUPPORTER.png
 
cyberbackpacker's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Jul 2008
Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,452
Liked 44 Times on 36 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by goatchze View Post
Calculating efficiency is the same regarldess of whether you use 0, 1, or 2 sparges. You are correct that the amount of water "can" affect the efficiency, but I don't think it is in the way you are conveying.

We're talking about a material balance on the sugars (sorry to use engineering terms, it's what I do for a living). Let's take the example:

If i have 8 lbs of 2-row pilsner, it has the "potential" at 100% conversion to produce 37 gravity points/lb-gal. This means that at 100% conversion I could have the following, all giving me 100% efficiency:

1 gallon @ 1.296 (296 x 1 = 296)
2 gallons @ 1.148 (148 x 2 = 296)
5 gallons @ 1.0592 (59.2 x 5 = 296)
10 gallons @ 1.0296 (29.6 x 10 = 296)

All of those would give me 100% efficiency. The volume of water, by itself, doesn't matter. What matters is the gravity with respect to the volume. The boil-off and boil-time have no influence at all.

What matters is the mass of sugars extracted.
Using your info here though goat, what you are failing to see is that we are talking more than conversion efficiency, we are talking brewhouse, and for brutus 20 and no sparge purposes, EVERYTHING matters.

If I am no-sparging a 4g batch with your example above, if I collect 5 gallons @ 1.0592 I am leaving .15 gallons per pound of 1.0592 wort behind due to grain absorption. However, if I have a higher boil off rate, longer boil, or a combination, if I collect your 10 gallons @ 1.0296, I will only be leaving behind .15 gallons per pound of 1.0296 wort due to grain absorption.

So, this will yield a greater brewhouse efficiency. It ALL matters.

EDIT: jkarp beat me to the punch, and much more eloquently... but I think my point is still valid to the conversation too!
__________________
-Kevin
cyberbackpacker

Trinke Das Bier Das Du Gebraut Hast

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:23 PM   #28
jkarp
 
jkarp's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Jun 2008
Elizabeth, CO
Posts: 2,112
Liked 44 Times on 34 Posts


lamarguy - How about taking a closer look at those two graphs. Now, look again. Have a 3rd look for good measure.

They're NOT that far off. For a 30 lb grist, I show around 58%. The other graph shows around 54%. I'm simply saying I don't have the necessary data to understand how that other graph was determined.

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:24 PM   #29
lamarguy
 
lamarguy's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Aug 2008
Austin, TX
Posts: 1,653
Liked 25 Times on 24 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfkriege View Post
I have looked at the spreadsheet that jkarp used to make that graph. The numbers are sound and well thought out. Besides, the guy has proven his data with his own system and beer that he has actually brewed.
Having done no-sparge in the past and seeing numbers posted by other folks, the real world drop off in brewhouse efficiency is simply not believable.

Keep in mind, we have folks posting in here about acheiving 110% brewhouse efficiency. Boggles the mind.

I'm not saying jkarp is making up data and I'm certainly not taking sides on this debate. I am saying the numbers do not correlate with Kaiser's data or any real world data I've seen to date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfkriege View Post
Lamarguy, what is the batch size, evaporation rate, dead loss, and assumed grain absorption rate to make the graph that you keep showing.

Vb=6.5 gal, A = 0.19 gal/lb, VD=0 gal


I assume when folks engage in efficiency discussions they have at least read Kaiser's work.
__________________
Doggfather Brewery

Planned: Lambic, American IPA
Fermenting: 6 gals of 1.090 stout (Belgian) & 6 gals of 1.090 stout (English)
Tapped: Berliner Weisse, Black English IPA, German Pils, & Live Oak Primus

 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 07:32 PM   #30
lamarguy
 
lamarguy's Avatar
Recipes 
 
Aug 2008
Austin, TX
Posts: 1,653
Liked 25 Times on 24 Posts


Quote:
Originally Posted by jkarp View Post
lamarguy - How about taking a closer look at those two graphs. Now, look again. Have a 3rd look for good measure.
No need to get touchy. If you present your work as evidence, expect comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkarp View Post
They're NOT that far off. For a 30 lb grist, I show around 58%. The other graph shows around 54%.
Correct.
__________________
Doggfather Brewery

Planned: Lambic, American IPA
Fermenting: 6 gals of 1.090 stout (Belgian) & 6 gals of 1.090 stout (English)
Tapped: Berliner Weisse, Black English IPA, German Pils, & Live Oak Primus

 
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Head Spinning: Fly Sparge, Batch Sparge, Hybrid Fly Sparge williamgardner All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 13 02-08-2010 04:07 PM
Can someone help me understand? Pivot General Beer Discussion 8 02-07-2010 09:42 PM
Batch sparge w/ rims continuous recirculation? kydan47 All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 2 07-08-2009 11:05 PM
My New 10g eHERMS System mZnthebend Brew Stands 4 03-17-2009 10:47 PM
Sparge Calculator...some things I don't understand about it. Need help fat x nub All Grain & Partial Mash Brewing 2 07-28-2008 02:38 AM


Forum Jump