Anvil Foundry 6.5 threads,all things 6.5

[NSMikeD]

No, sparging is defined as rinsing with fresh water. Recirculating wort is not sparging, and does nothing to increase lauter efficiency, whereas sparging dramatically increases lauter efficiency.

Lautering is defined as separating the wort from the grain. A sparge step(s) may, or may, not be a part of the lautering process. Lifting the malt pipe, or bag, is lautering, just as draining the wort from an MLT is lautering.

Brew on

I concede I took some liberties with nomenclature, yes you are right. For the purpose of the claim about dead space however. the full volume mash in BIAB combines the sparge and lautering water together. And considering that BIAB is regularly matching the efficiency of traditional all grain brewing, the end result of recirculating wort through a malt pipe (the bag) with the combined water is achieving the same result and separate process, and I fully disagree that the wort in the dead space never touches the wort for the reason I mentioned.

Note that I am not disagreeing with you point about not doing full volume mash and the total pot space of the 6.5. Just the point about dead space.

 

[doug293cz]

the full volume mash in BIAB combines the sparge and lautering water together.

No, no, no. In the case of a full volume mash, there is no sparge at all. It is different from a lautering mechanics standpoint than mashing with some of the total brewing water, and sparging with the balance. All else being equal (total brewing water volume, conversion efficiency, grain absorption, etc.) the sparged lauter will have a higher lauter efficiency than the full volume lauter. This is easily quantified, and I have published a chart that demonstrates this too many times to count.

Brew on

 

[DuncB]

It's been mentioned many times with anvils to lift the malt pipe up and down to mix the deadspace water with the rest of the mash water again this will improve your mash efficiency and brewhouse efficiency. Worth a try even if you don't believe it.
Don't try it though if your malt pipe has a loose bottom unless you are very careful, as the bottom plate can get lifted and then grain chaos ensues.

 

[tracer bullet]

I fully disagree that the wort in the dead space never touches the wort for the reason I mentioned.

Are you talking under the pipe? If so - yes - it mixes in and is part of the recirculation path.

Are you talking outside the pipe? If so - no - it just sits there. It's basically just water. It does not have anything come to replace it, it just sits there.

I don't care to argue, I just hope to help people understand things I guess. It may help make better beer if you don't have a bunch of water mixed in at the last minute especially if you watch your numbers at all (gallons, gravity, etc.). Understanding the pipe, and what it does and doesn't do, can be a big part of that. Especially for the 6.5 where, proportionally, it's a bigger deal than the 10.5 (which has the same issue). You don't have to care about it, but you may as well know about it.

 

[kevin58]

I disagree. From what I can see beyond the nose on my face (jk) The wort gets recirculated into the wort in the malt pipe. The walls are solid so the wort you see in the space has to go through the lower and bottom of the malt pipe before it can mix with the rest of the malt. where the pump is drawing wort which would pull the "side wall" wort below the malt pipe and then through the spigot.

Also the post about the sparge doesn't add up. Lifting the bag (malt pipe) is sparge in BIAB. If holding back water so you can rinse the grains after mashing is the point, then I would argue the same as above, the side wall wort is in the circulation path.

I may be missing some thing so I am open to discussion

But it doesn't. This has been proven by member @Oginme who has done experiments testing the volume of water between the malt pipe and the kettle wall and testing the gravity of that water. Somewhere there is a thread where he gives the exact volume in that space and the gravity measurements he experienced. He also has a much better explanation than I can attempt of why the wort on the sides does not get pulled into the pump but the basic takeaway is that in his tests the water in question is not getting mixed into and making contact with the grains.

 

[tracer bullet]

But it doesn't. This has been proven by member @Oginme who has done experiments testing the volume of water between the malt pipe and the kettle wall and testing the gravity of that water. Somewhere there is a thread where he gives the exact volume in that space and the gravity measurements he experienced. He also has a much better explanation than I can attempt of why the wort on the sides does not get pulled into the pump but the basic takeaway is that in his tests the water in question is not getting mixed into and making contact with the grains.

Rounding off, I've measured 1 gallon under the pipe (does mix in, even if not super well around the edges) and for the area around the pipe about 30% of the total cross section.

Both are important if using the pipe and thinking about the "quarts water per pound of grain" thing where 1.25 - 1.50 is often suggested. Only the latter is important regarding mixing and efficiency and such.

You can seem to get good efficiency, then pull the pipe out and have that water mix in, and suddenly wonder WTF happened to your #'s. It's a thing you only do once. If you're the type to check your #'s anyhow.

 

[kevin58]

From the AHA forum:

The conversation on this topic began with a question from Wilbur about low efficiency using the Foundry 6.5:
...I've varied anywhere from 62-72% efficiency with my foundry... On my previous setup, a 1V BIAB, I typically got 72-78% efficiency. I'm not sure what the root cause is...

Answer from Oginme:
What you are experiencing is a built in inefficiency in the Anvil. The water between the sides of the malt pipe and wall of the vessel does not take much part in the mashing process. When you lift the pipe, this mixes in and dilutes the gravity of the wort coming from the malt basket. You can pick up an easy 4+ points of mash efficiency by lifting the malt pipe after 20 to 30 minutes of mashing to mix in the water from the sides with the wort.

Reply from Wilbur:
I normally recirculate, I'd imagine that would draw some of that water out, right? Still you're right, my previous BIAB setup went wall to wall and this doesn't. Something to think about for sure.

Answer from Oginme:
I used to think so, then I actually started to take measurements of the gravity of the water versus the wort which is being recirculated. Just taking one of several data points I measured, the wort was at 11.6 Brix and halfway down between the mash basket and side wall, the water was at 0.8 Brix. I have a 6.5 gal Anvil and the volume between the side of the kettle and the mash basket is around 2.9 liters. When I lifted the basket, the wort ended up at 9.5 Brix, which was pretty close to the calculated value for the 2.9 liters of 0.8 brix combined with 11.5 liters of 11.6 brix (~9.4 brix).

So why does the water from the sides not get drawn down into the basket? When recirculating, we are drawing water from the bottom of unit and adding that water to the top of the basket. This creates a pressure difference do the added head at the top of the basket. Since the liquid will seek its own level, this will mean that the wort which gets recirculated will preferentially come from the mash basket and not from the water at the sides of the mash basket.

Question from Pete b:
Maybe a dumb question but I have only had a few sips of coffee: wouldn’t the wort in the basket just be more concentrated with the extracted sugars than if all the wort had equal contact with the grains and the finished wort after sparging have all the extracted sugars that it would have with equal contact? So in your example above if the contact was equal wouldn’t you still end up with a 9.4 Brit wort?

Reply from Oginme:
The answer is reflected in the mash efficiency. I was hanging around 83% mash efficiency before the process change with recipes with a gravity of up to 1.055. The mash efficiency dropped off quite a bit as the gravity went above 1.065-1.070 to around 78%.

After the process change (lifting the mash basket during the mash), I am averaging between 86%-87% mash efficiency for target gravity below 1.060 and it has dropped down to 82% to 83% for higher gravity brews (up to 1.088 which is the highest I have brewed since the change).

I was looking for more consistency between the two ranges, and may just keep the process change for higher gravity brews.

ynotbrusum asks:
What about slowly lowering the mash basket into the strike water at the start of the mash? I do that. It is akin to underletting in terms of avoiding dough balls and I would think it would better mix the solution outside the malt pipe. That and stirring the mash every ten minutes should minimize any stratification in the small area between the malt pipe and the kettle wall. Finally, collecting the drippings post mash and adding them to the pre-boil will increase the overall starting gravity at the start of the boil.

As you suggest, lifting the mash basket mid mash should also help, no doubt, but I haven’t found the need for that. I will give it a try next batch.

Oginme says:
I have mashed in several times by lowering the basket with crushed malt into the hot water. The water on the sides still is not actively involved in the extraction and conversion. One of the things on my list is to change the recirculation part way through the mash to outside the basket to mix and replace much of the water with wort which has a higher concentration of sugar. Overall, it may be more work and bother than just lifting the basket once or twice during the mash.

That is as far as the conversation on this topic went.

 

[doug293cz]

Question from Pete b:
Maybe a dumb question but I have only had a few sips of coffee: wouldn’t the wort in the basket just be more concentrated with the extracted sugars than if all the wort had equal contact with the grains and the finished wort after sparging have all the extracted sugars that it would have with equal contact? So in your example above if the contact was equal wouldn’t you still end up with a 9.4 Brit wort?

Reply from Oginme:
The answer is reflected in the mash efficiency. I was hanging around 83% mash efficiency before the process change with recipes with a gravity of up to 1.055. The mash efficiency dropped off quite a bit as the gravity went above 1.065-1.070 to around 78%.

There is a specific reason that mash efficiency is lower when just lifting the malt pipe once, vs. lifting, lowering, and lifting again (and maybe repeating):

Lauter efficiency (mash efficiency = conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency) is solely determined by the amount of sugar (more rigorously extract) retained in the grain mass after the completion of the lautering process. The retained sugar is determined by the grain absorption rate, grain bill weight, and sparging process.

If you have high SG wort in the pipe, and very low SG wort outside the pipe, when you lift the pipe all of the retained wort is the high SG wort (the wort containing the most sugar.) If you do the lift/lower/lift routine, then you (at least partially) homogenize the high SG and low SG wort, so the SG of the wort in the pipe after the final lift is lower than the SG was prior to the initial lift. Thus the wort retained in the grain will have a lower SG, and contain less sugar, than the single lift case.

The same effect occurs if you do a sparge, but you do increase the lauter efficiency in both cases by sparging.

If anyone is interested, I can put together some typical parameters and do a quantitative simulation. You would need to provide some info on typical grain bill weight, strike volume, and grain absorption rate.

TLR: Homogenizing the total volume of wort lowers the SG of the wort retained by the grain, thus increasing lauter (and mash) efficiency.

Brew on

 

[GPNewBrew]

This has been a interesting discussion since my post(#19) regarding dead space under and around the malt pipe. While I am concerned about the FACT that there is limiting mixing of the mash with all of the water, my bigger concern, and one that I have experienced, is that the smaller Diameter malt pipe causes quite a thick mash. i am concerned that the thicker mash hampers a good conversion, and using more water to make the mash thinner can, in the end, create a larger preboil volume that I have to boil longer to try and arrive at my target gravity. In fact, I find it difficult at times to have enough water to sparge with when add some extra water to make the mash less viscous. This I don’t believe is a problem with 10.5 due to larger water volumes.

 

[DuncB]

@GPNewBrew
I use a 70 litre system but mainly brew 25 litre to fermenter batches, there's space for really runny mashes. But the dead space below the malt pipe is 9 litres and then more between the wall and kettle side.
The 6.5 by it's physical size is suited to weaker batches or smaller higher gravity batches unless you try a reiterated mash or combine small batches to get a bigger volume.
You can't get a quart out of a pint pot.
All this being said not mixing part of your mash water in the mash has an impact whatever size system you have.

 

[tracer bullet]

This I don’t believe is a problem with 10.5 due to larger water volumes.

It's a little less so but still there. The gallon under the basket (not exact but very close) is the same for each, but largely included in the flow if you recirculate. The 30% of the remaining diameter is outside the basket, and is true for both. It's less an issue for the 10.5 because of the overall ratios but still a big one. If you brewed similar size batches in a 10.5 as you do with a 6.5, it'd be identical.

The lift & lower thing a few times works wonders, and isn't too bad. You can also do a false bottom (a particular round grille from Amazon works perfectly) and a bag. You're still missing the grain being in that gallon, but generally speaking of course the grain is in all of the remaining water.

I found that for "normal" beers, say 5% ABV, the pipe works with the lift & lower thing plus recirculation. For bigger beers I ditch the pipe and do the false bottom and bag. Of course you could just do that all the time as well. In both cases I have the grains submerged pretty well, the only time it's an issue is trying an Imperial Stout for example, but then it's true for any system brewing one of those.

 

[NSMikeD]

Easy fix, add a y splitter and run the recirculation simultaneously down the malt pipe (traditionally) and along the side with a swirly. This way the circulation outside the pipe will keep it from being stagnant.

In either case, I don't care at all about efficiency. I am not a commercial brewer and my focus is on consistency and not efficiency. I have set up my equipment profile efficiency in the software based on my experience (and adjust when I noticed a pattern) as the difference in the grain bill is pennies. When I was brewing with a bag in a pot over the stove I did the math as I didn't like squeezing the bag or sparging over another pot to bump efficiency, and I realized my brew day would be a lot easier by not trying to squeeze the round peg into a square hole.

In the end, as a home brewer, for me what matters is enjoying the process and enjoying what I drink.

 

[kevin58]

In either case, I don't care at all about efficiency. I am not a commercial brewer and my focus is on consistency and not efficiency. I have set up my equipment profile efficiency in the software based on my experience (and adjust when I noticed a pattern) as the difference in the grain bill is pennies.

Still, if you can go from 83% to 87% just by lifting the basket why wouldn't you?

 

[tracer bullet]

I lift and lower:

* Consistency between batches when trying to create a recipe
* I get the results of any recipe I copy
* I get to transfer my propane recipes without fudging everything because of the differences
* Grain is cheap, but lifting and lowering is free
* For me, maybe not others, lifting and lowering brings not only efficiency but also consistency

There's no wrong answer. Letting it sit is fine too.

 

[NSMikeD]

Still, if you can go from 83% to 87% just by lifting the basket why wouldn't you?

^. This too.

I ordered the swirly for whirlpooling and the notion hit me to use it to stir the space On second thought the shape of the swirly may not fit with the malt pipe in. Nevertheless, I’m not too concerned about the dead space. The fix is easy and since it’s recommended to stir the mash periodically, might as
Well give it a lift.

 

[bwible]

In either case, I don't care at all about efficiency. I am not a commercial brewer and my focus is on consistency and not efficiency.

The reason to care about efficiency with the 6.5 is that you have a limited 8 pound grain capacity and even with small 2.5 or 3 gallon batches there is only so much you can do with 8 lbs.

I find it to be good for the “average” beers. I can usually hit 1.060 or close to that. For lower gravity beers like bitter, mild, light lagers I can usually even brew 5 gallons.

When you get into the beers above about 1.060 you have to get creative. Barleywine, imperial stout, doppelbock, etc. You can add extract ($$), go back to brewing on your Gott cooler system (and lose your temp control, the ability to step mash, etc) or even take up a re-iterated or double mash.

I’ve heard some guys are tossing the malt pipe and brewing with some kind of false bottom and a brew bag. I have a 6.5 and I’m trying to research that right now - how much more grain will that allow you to have?

 

[tracer bullet]

I’ve heard some guys are tossing the malt pipe and brewing with some kind of false bottom and a brew bag. I have a 6.5 and I’m trying to research that right now - how much more grain will that allow you to have?

I did 11.5 pounds of grain for my recent Imperial Stout. It's full but can still be stirred. Bag and false bottom, no pipe. I got around 65% efficiency.