Are the pumps too powerful?

[RoatanBill]

From what I understand, wort needs to trickle out of the MLT at a slow rate to allow the liquid to run out without also causing the mass of solids to compress more than absolutely necessary as the liquid that provides buoyancy for the solids is reduced. The more liquid that's drained out the more weight of solids above the liquid pressing down on the remaining solids still below the wort. Is this correct?

Mash viscosity is variable depending on what's being brewed. How often does a HERMS pump operate at full flow? How often is it choked down due to mash viscosity so as not to suck the solids down into a somewhat compressed mass that then would cause flow to seriously reduce and affect the HERMS ability to control mash temperature?

I can see the HLT pump always at full throttle, but I suspect the HERMS pump may need to have a variable flow rate 100% - 30%. The MLT to BK pump operation needs to be choked off to possibly a 10% flow, I guess.

Are the pumps too powerful for some of what they are being used for?

Is anyone using DC pumps to regulate the power being applied to the pump (within reason)?

Typically, how long should it take to remove 11G-13G of wort (10G of future beer) from an MLT into the BK while sparge is commencing at least initially? What's a reasonable flow rate?

 

[mredge73]

I think you are overthinking it a bit, I run my HERMS at full flow and wish I had more power so I can better control the temperature.
As long as the liquid level is above the grain level you have your buoyancy. I use .32 gallons per lb. + .5 gallon to it to account for wort that is trapped in my hoses/coils; in my system the grain is always below the liquid level.
You want to use a good false bottom to keep from sucking solids and at the same time keep things circulating through the grain bed. Channeling is a common issue and stuck mashes are still possible; however both are easy to avoid if you watch out for them.

 

[Yooper]

Generally, a ball valve is added to the output of the pump. That way, you can run full speed for your HERMS (if you want), or for filling/emptying or doing a batch sparge but throttle it down if you're doing a fly sparge.

I use two March pumps. One is a 809 and one is a 815, but I run them about the same and I've been happy with them for years. I think I got the first one in 2007 or so and the second within a year.

Mash viscosity is not an issue at all. You're not pumping grain, which is above the false bottom (or in a bag, or otherwise contained). You're pumping wort, which is liquid and like water. If grainbed compaction is an issue, it's because of something else, like pulling a vacuum due to the false bottom set up or another issue.

 

[RoatanBill]

I think you are overthinking it a bit

Me, an anal engineer, overthinking things? Nah that could never happen!

What prompted this thread was a video of the Braumeister. They made a point of stating they programatically shut their pump down periodically to allow the mash to expand. They run their setup to push wort up through the mash with a screen that prevents it escaping their internal stainless steel mesh "bag". I looked at the more normal set up and concluded that gravity plus suction could just possibly compact the solids to ruin flow, especially if the mash contains a lot of solids.

You state a specific water to solids ratio. At one given reasonable ratio, I can easily envision running the HERMS pump full throttle. It's when I see someone add so much grain that the results looks like heavy oatmeal that had me concerned. I believe it was on Blickmann's site that they gave liquid to solids ratios that, if memory serves, had 3 times as much grain at maximum than minimum.

... batch sparge ... fly sparge

More things for me to look up.

You mentioned the false bottom. Blickmann's false bottom has the suction line at the edge of the kettle. Common sense says that more sugar will drain down near that port than the center or the opposite edge of the kettle. On the other hand, they are preferentially pulling from one side that makes channeling along the near wall more likely. I do like their slotted design, much like the knock outs in an electrical box but the location of the suction port isn't optimum for moving the most amount of sugar. Am I wrong?

 

[dyqik]

You mentioned the false bottom. Blickmann's false bottom has the suction line at the edge of the kettle. Common sense says that more sugar will drain down near that port than the center or the opposite edge of the kettle. On the other hand, they are preferentially pulling from one side that makes channeling along the near wall more likely. I do like their slotted design, much like the knock outs in an electrical box but the location of the suction port isn't optimum for moving the most amount of sugar. Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong here. The resistance to flow is all in the grainbed above the false bottom, and wort flows easily under the false bottom, and thus can't sustain a pressure gradient. That means that the pressure in the fluid under the false bottom is pretty much uniform, and the suction pulls pretty evenly across the false bottom, with no preferential area for channeling due to that. There may still be channeling near the wall though, but not on any particular side.

With a 24V little tan pump in my RIMS set up with a domed false bottom in a 10 gal round cooler, I have to throttle the flow at the start of the mash, but by about 20 minutes into the mash, I can open up fully. That's for 1.5 qt/lb mash thickness with conditioned grain milled at 0.032". At 1.25 qt/lb I can run full throttle with a couple of handfuls of rice hulls in the mash. I have a sight glass installed through the side of the mash tun near the base, and I can use that as a manometer to determine how much vacuum I'm pulling near the base of the mash. I try to keep it so that the liquid level in the sight glass stays above the 2 gal mark.

 

[Yooper]

You mentioned the false bottom. Blickmann's false bottom has the suction line at the edge of the kettle. Common sense says that more sugar will drain down near that port than the center or the opposite edge of the kettle. On the other hand, they are preferentially pulling from one side that makes channeling along the near wall more likely. I do like their slotted design, much like the knock outs in an electrical box but the location of the suction port isn't optimum for moving the most amount of sugar. Am I wrong?

No, more sugar won't drain down near the port than the center or the opposite edge- sugar is in solution.

Channeling is a function of the grainbed compacting or otherwise not allowing full flow.

 

[mredge73]

You state a specific water to solids ratio. At one given reasonable ratio, I can easily envision running the HERMS pump full throttle. It's when I see someone add so much grain that the results looks like heavy oatmeal that had me concerned. I believe it was on Blickmann's site that they gave liquid to solids ratios that, if memory serves, had 3 times as much grain at maximum than minimum.

The water to solids ratio is the key here. If you keep with a 1.25qt/lb (.32gal/lb) or higher and account for system losses you won't have a heavy oatmeal situation. Grain absorption is about .14gal/lb so a little over half of the strike water will be available for circulation. System losses are unique to your system, mine is pretty high because I use a 50' 1/2" coil that traps ~.5 gallons so I add this to my total strike water.

When it comes to rinsing/sparging this system is the best of both worlds because you can dump all of your clean water in the mash tun like batch sparging and then recirculate mechanically moving water through the grain like fly sparging yielding an efficiency somewhere in between he two methods. It also saves time, I only have to rinse for 10 minutes to get to my intended efficiency.

 

[RoatanBill]

dyqik:

Your description is plausible and since its also experience speaking, I'll go with it. I like your idea of having a suction indicator and a simple tube is an excellent solution.

Yooper:

I'd like to have an experiment run. After a brew day, simulate the start of a mash with the spent grain. Have the same temperature and pump setting as normal, and run things to simulate real world mash conditions. Now drop blue dye into the water at the top of the kettle above the side drain, and red dye opposite it to see which color shows up first or if it will be purple.

This is really just a gedankenexperiment as an actual test probably wouldn't work as the grains would still release enough pigment to invalidate the test. My bet would be that blue would show up preferentially in theory, the only question being how significant that result is to the overall process.

A post in another thread indicated that an experienced brewer used a paddle to mix the mash every 15 minutes during the MLT step in a HERMS system. When I read that I thought it would be considered sacrilege or heresy, but another experienced poster didn't seem to have any issue with it. No details were given about the pumps or anything else, so there may be more to it than just inserting a paddle and moving things around.

The stated intent was to increase mash efficiency which would suggest that just flowing wort through the grain bed doesn't provide for maximum efficiency. The conclusion I draw is that preferential flow is always present in one form or another. I further conclude it's probably me worrying about things of minimal consequence.

 

[RoatanBill]

The water to solids ratio is the key here. If you keep with a 1.25qt/lb (.32gal/lb) or higher ...

But how can you do this? Doesn't the specific recipe/formula for a particular beer determine the solids to liquid ratio? I believe it was a video of a barleywine brew that created a sludge that hardly moved. If one stood the paddle upright in the mash and let go it would just stay there, it was so thick.

I was originally leaning towards the Braumeister as the equipment platform but then decided against it because I discovered it wasn't appropriate for certain classes of brew, specifically those with a high solids to liquid ratio. The reverse flow they have through the grain bed is a great idea IMHO.

I have no idea which beer or beers I'll end up liking so I need to maintain maximum flexibility which brings me to the 3 kettle setup.

 

[jrcrilly]

Doesn't the specific recipe/formula for a particular beer determine the solids to liquid ratio? I

You select the strike water volume based on the grain volume and desired ratio. The only exception is when the tun volume is too small for the grain bill and there isn't enough room for the desired strike water volume. This probably happened with the barleywine brew you mentioned, and it used to happen to me when using a suboptimal mash tun. The easy solution is a mash tun of sufficient volume to permit the desired ratio,

 

[mredge73]

+1
The videos that you are watching must be using a small mash tun and barley wine is the worst case scenario.
There are formulas for calculating mash tun size requirements but I don't know them. I would say 30%-50% larger than you biggest brew, for example a keggle at 15.5 gallons is appropriate for 10-12 gallon batches.
If you size your mash tun correctly you can use the same solid to liquid ratio every time, 1.25qt water per 1 lb of grain is generally used.

As far as thickness goes crush and content play a role, high wheat content or too fine a crush will thicken up and lead to a stuck mash situation. You can bump up your water to grain ratio to help prevent caking and use pre-soaked rice hulls in this situation.

Recipes cannot dictate these water ratios, they don't know your system and situation. This is up to you to figure out.

 

[mredge73]

A post in another thread indicated that an experienced brewer used a paddle to mix the mash every 15 minutes during the MLT step in a HERMS system. When I read that I thought it would be considered sacrilege or heresy, but another experienced poster didn't seem to have any issue with it. No details were given about the pumps or anything else, so there may be more to it than just inserting a paddle and moving things around.

The stated intent was to increase mash efficiency which would suggest that just flowing wort through the grain bed doesn't provide for maximum efficiency. The conclusion I draw is that preferential flow is always present in one form or another. I further conclude it's probably me worrying about things of minimal consequence.

Breweries use a recirculating mash with an automated mash paddle that constantly stirs the mash. So it isn't sacrilege and it does increase mash efficiency. The resulting wort will be cloudy with solids mixed in; breweries use another vessel (lauter tun) to filter these out before going to the brew kettle.

In a homebrewing 3 vessel setup, you will use a combination mash/lauter tun. If you stir the wort you will want to give it extra time to allow it to settle and compact before transfering it to the boil kettle.

 

[RoatanBill]

mredge73:
Yesterday, I looked into some recipes for beer to see how water and solids are treated. I got lost in the jargon within about 30 posts on this site.

Last night I re-read the first two sections of "How To Brew" which weren't aimed at a 3 kettle set up, but in general, I followed the logic and it made sense. I got lost in the formulas and again the jargon relating to IBU, AA, etc as those things really don't make much sense to me right now. I'm an engineer, so it's not the arithmetic, but the logic behind it that I'm not getting as I lack the experience. It's just empty theory to me now.

I'll read the 3rd section today which should more closely resemble what I'm interested in and I'll try to follow along. I understand the general sequence of events which are pretty simple.

I'm looking at three 20G kettles in a HERMS setup to produce 10G beer batches, so from your description I should be fine no matter what I decide to try. I really don't understand it, but I'll take your word for it. I think the understanding will come later as I get into brewing.

Right now my questions on this site are aimed at making sure I purchase equipment that doesn't restrict my future options. I don't want to purchase equipment that requires gymnastics or out of the ordinary procedures to produce a particular beer. I may never attempt a barley wine (since I haven't a clue what that is) but I want the option open if I do.

Thanks for your replies. They helped a lot.

 

[Stealthcruiser]

In regards to DC powered wort pumps, this is a L O N G thread, but folks seem to have hashed it as to which pumps, power supplies, controlling speeds, food safe plastics, impellers and whatnot.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=375904&page=153


Edit: it'll give you more to over analyze.......

 

[thekraken]

But how can you do this? Doesn't the specific recipe/formula for a particular beer determine the solids to liquid ratio? I believe it was a video of a barleywine brew that created a sludge that hardly moved. If one stood the paddle upright in the mash and let go it would just stay there, it was so thick.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that strike and sparge water to grain ratios aren't so important to the taste of the final product at the home brew scale.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/15/th...in-liquor-to-grist-ratio-exbeeriment-results/

 

[RoatanBill]

TheKraken:
Stealthcruiser:

Thanks.

And I will read them.

 

[mredge73]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that strike and sparge water to grain ratios aren't so important to the taste of the final product at the home brew scale.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/15/th...in-liquor-to-grist-ratio-exbeeriment-results/

It isn't about the taste, it is about efficiency.
The more water you can use in the sparge step the higher efficiency you can achieve. Higher efficiency means you need less grain to achieve the same OG.
The case study quoted did show a slight efficiency difference.

On the homebrew level having a consistent mash efficiency is better than a high mash efficiency, you need to dial you system in to create your recipes. I know mine is about 73% so I build my recipes accordingly and hit my desired OG every time. Some people can get theirs up to 78-80% using some time consuming or advanced techniques. I have done thin mash and no sparge before, however my efficiency dropped to 60-65%.

*Note that mash efficiency and conversion efficiency are not the same thing.

 

[thekraken]

Indeed. But in the context of reading recipes and stuck sparges I thought I should point out that one doesn't need to focus on someone else's water to grain ratios but rather the components of the recipe and your own system.

+1 to consistency is the name of the game. I'm a full volume masher my self, I've found that just makes life easier for me (efficiencies in the 75% range)

[edit]
You know, on second thought I'm not sure I buy that strike water to grain ratio is the determining factor in extract efficiency. All else equal in the end you are rinsing the same amount of grains to get the same amount of preboil volume. It seems to me that total brewing liquor to grain ratio is more of a determining factor in extract efficiency. The term no sparge mashing could be considered a bit of a misnomer, one could argue that in full volume mashing that the strike and sparge are done in a single step.

I know you mentioned your personal experience in efficiency wasn't great with no sparge, but I do want to point out that biabers regularly report consistent extract efficiencies in the 80s (between finer crush and bag squeezing, nothing so complicated)

 

[itivino]

dyqik:

Your description is plausible and since its also experience speaking, I'll go with it. I like your idea of having a suction indicator and a simple tube is an excellent solution.

Yooper:

I'd like to have an experiment run. After a brew day, simulate the start of a mash with the spent grain. Have the same temperature and pump setting as normal, and run things to simulate real world mash conditions. Now drop blue dye into the water at the top of the kettle above the side drain, and red dye opposite it to see which color shows up first or if it will be purple.

This is really just a gedankenexperiment as an actual test probably wouldn't work as the grains would still release enough pigment to invalidate the test. My bet would be that blue would show up preferentially in theory, the only question being how significant that result is to the overall process.

A post in another thread indicated that an experienced brewer used a paddle to mix the mash every 15 minutes during the MLT step in a HERMS system. When I read that I thought it would be considered sacrilege or heresy, but another experienced poster didn't seem to have any issue with it. No details were given about the pumps or anything else, so there may be more to it than just inserting a paddle and moving things around.

The stated intent was to increase mash efficiency which would suggest that just flowing wort through the grain bed doesn't provide for maximum efficiency. The conclusion I draw is that preferential flow is always present in one form or another. I further conclude it's probably me worrying about things of minimal consequence.

I agree with stirring the mash - this is purely anecdotal from my 30gallon pot RIMs system, but I get the best results when I circulate, turn off and stir, let it sit for 10 mins, circulate again to keep the heat up, etc. I seem to get faster conversion when the mash is sitting without re-circulation. I don't insulate at all, so the walls tend to cool down quickly though.

I do 1qt/lb thickness currently. Used to have a lot of stuck sparges, but after re-doing my tubing to not use elbows, I don't seem to have as many issues. Not able to run a chugger at full blast, but close to halfway open (ball valve on pump outlet) without increasing the vacuum too much.

Also use a vacuum gauge at the pump inlet, probably best small investment I've made after scorching a wheat batch in my RIMs. Generally get about 83-85% mash efficiency.

 

[RoatanBill]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that strike and sparge water to grain ratios aren't so important to the taste of the final product at the home brew scale.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/02/15/th...in-liquor-to-grist-ratio-exbeeriment-results/

Interesting article.

It would appear he got 12G per batch as opposed to the goal of 10G, given the image. Since this was an exBEERiment, I would think the brewer would be paying more attention than normal, so how does he end up with more than planned? If he ended up with 10G eventually as planned, what ate up the difference between the approx 12G in the image?

 

[RoatanBill]

itivino:
I'm curious. What made you wait the 10 minutes knowing the kettle would cool down and temps are so important? I would have stopped the pump, stirred and restarted the pumps ASAP to maintain temps. How did you discover that the wait was responsible for the efficiency increase?

I never liked that long string of SS parts sticking straight out the side of these thin metal kettles. That's a lever arm waiting to stress the kettle wall, so, I'm considering poking holes in the bottom of the kettles and running almost all the ports that way to allow me to conveniently apply an insulating jacket. I've thought about using larger than 1/2" ports and immediately use an elbow under the kettle to go to a > 1/2" line to a 1/2" valve (via reducer bushing) located just below the kettle front underneath the support table. I'd line all the valves up next to each other along the front for easy access. What do you think?

I wasn't aware a food grade vacuum gauge was available. Good to know.

 

[thekraken]

Interesting article.

It would appear he got 12G per batch as opposed to the goal of 10G, given the image. Since this was an exBEERiment, I would think the brewer would be paying more attention than normal, so how does he end up with more than planned? If he ended up with 10G eventually as planned, what ate up the difference between the approx 12G in the image?

I'm not sure I follow. I see that the recipe calls for an 11 gallon batch. Nonetheless you do have to give these guys a little leeway they aren't running professional labs, they are just homebrewers after all. This is why I always refer to their results as anecdotal. I do find the exbeeriments interesting anyway.

 

[beermanpete]

Take a look at this article: http://brewlikeapro.net/lautering.html

 

[RoatanBill]

theKraken:
The text says "a dual 10 gallon batch brew day" I overlooked the recipe as most of that is still Greek to me. It says 11G after you alerted me to that fact. You, an experienced brewer reads the recipe. I, a know nothing, read the text. Who would have guessed?

beermanpete:
Interesting article. Thank You

I would never have guessed that the wort should come out that slow. That kind of brings me back to why I started this thread. What's the point of having a pump except for convenience when the flow is so puny?

It would seem that the folks with the MLT physically above the BK have the right idea and allow gravity to move the wort, and I'm sure they even reduce the flow rate.

 

[beermanpete]

A pump is required for recirculating wort during vorlauf and whirlpooling. Also, it allows a sinlge level brew system.

 

[Stealthcruiser]

@RoatanBill

Know anyone there by the last name of "Palumbo" ?

 

[RoatanBill]

beermanpete:
I'm not suggesting not using a pump. Whirlpooling, pushing through a counter flow chiller, etc are all reasonable uses for the pump. Restricting the flow of a pump down to a trickle just seems like a misuse of the equipment. Gravity is gentler; it's absolutely consistent. A 1 degree difference in the valve setting on the pump output would make a large difference on how much wort flows. Gravity is more predictable and repeatable.

I definitely want a single level, but with a bit of ingenuity, a long arm hydraulic/pneumatic ram (cheap) and some welding I could raise the BK's bottom 3" below the MLT's current liquid level and allow gravity to start the flow very gently. Allowing air to leak out of the system would gradually lower the BK towards the floor. Once all the draining is done just raise the BK back to its single level position.

Given my past history, I know that once I start designing on CAD, I'll implement this just because I like the idea. It would help in cleaning the kettles too by lowering them towards the floor so I don't have to get on a ladder to reach inside.

Stealthcruiser:
That name doesn't ring a bell. Around here I'm Bill to the USians and Canadians and Mr.Bill to the locals. I doubt anyone knows my last name. Therefore, I may know the person but only by sight or first name.

 

[Stealthcruiser]

Stealthcruiser:
That name doesn't ring a bell. Around here I'm Bill to the USians and Canadians and Mr.Bill to the locals. I doubt anyone knows my last name. Therefore, I may know the person but only by sight or first name.

He was there in the mid-late 70's, buying a bunch of property.

He's history now, but think his family still owns there........He had Daughters, Pam and Jennifer.

He was a pioneer / inventor in computer hardware.

 

[jrcrilly]

beermanpete:Restricting the flow of a pump down to a trickle just seems like a misuse of the equipment. Gravity is gentler; it's absolutely consistent.

It doesn't seem like misuse to me if the pump is specifically designed for that purpose, as all of the magnetic pumps we use are. Also, one must regulate the flow with a ball valve either way; there is no reason to presume that gravity will just happen to deliver the desired flow rate. It didn't, when I used gravity feed. I regulated the flow with thye ball valve, just as I do now with pumps.

 

[beermanpete]

I have heard it said that pumps can damage the beer's flavor is some manner. To that end I have considered making a system that could raise and lower each vessel to allow safe and easy gravity feed flow. In the end I decided to use a pump because it is far easier to build the brewing system this way. I do agree it seems like the popular pumps are larger than requried but with the mag drive they will tolerate being dead headed so it is not a serious issue.

Ball valves do suck for very low flow rates. A needle valve would be better but may not tolerate solids well. Perhaps a metering orifice would be a suitble compromise albiet non-adjustable. I am considering building a perastaltic pump with two matched sections for the sparge and lauter process to ensure a constant level of liquor in the lauter tun. How necessary this is is debatable but it would be a fun construction project.

 

[bajaedition]

I have heard it said that pumps can damage the beer's flavor is some manner.

So that is why Budweiser taste so bad

 

[mredge73]

Using a pump during the sparge phase will always do more good than harm.
Think about what you are trying to do, you are trying to rinse sugar out of grain.
This takes physical work to do this; mixing, stirring, recirculating, etc...
There is a very minor concern with "hot side aeration" that I don't fully understand; just don't splash it a bunch and you should be fine.

Using a pump to transfer beer (post fermentation) is tricky. You don't want to introduce oxygen in or agitate the CO2 out of solution.
This is where using gravity to create a gentle siphon or pressure transfer is preferred.