Search results

Your batch sparge simulator gets to within 0.003 of the post-boil gravity predicted by BF if I use a 70% mash efficiency there (yours on the lower side even though your calculated mash efficiency in the spreadsheet is about 72%). Setting BF to 67% mash efficiency reproduces your pre- and...

Total grain weight: 14.375 lbs weighted grain potential: 1.0367 grain moisture content: 4.32 desired post-boil volume (68º): 6.29 gal (actual) boil-off rate: 0.96 gal/hr boil time: 65 min. minimum water/grain ratio: 1.4 qt/lb as set in BF, but I believe this does not include the 1.4 gal of...

Thanks Doug! Putting this together now.

I knew that Kai had done this and I had read about this once (but of course forgot the main points), but I also found yesterday that his website is currently inaccessible.

Sure, I just figured this would again start adding in a bunch of extra time since it would probably take more than a half an hour to get it as clear as it was in the initial mash (just a wild guess).

Thanks for this. I also prefer clear wort going into the boil kettle, which is why batch sparging has never been very attractive to me. I do like the idea that in no sparge the gravity you measure in the mash tun is the gravity you get pre-boil in the boil kettle. As you note, if you then...

With fly sparge it all depends on what sort of efficiency you're aiming for. I find that if I fly sparge slow, I approach the max efficiency for my system and it's also much more reproducible. I don't think an hour for fly sparging is out of the ordinary. I've decided I care more about time...

will do

At least with my system where I have about a gallon of foundation below my false bottom, if I don't go real slow with my fly sparge, about an hour, I take a hit of several percentage points in my mash efficiency. As I collect wort in my boil kettle, I'll keep it about 160º or so, but I don't...

Thanks, I usually get about 80-82% mash efficiency on my system when I fly sparge, so I was going to try with a guess of 70%, which is perhaps pretty conservative. I'm going to do a recipe I've done a couple of times, so that should give me a decent idea of the hit I'll take from doing no...

I've always done a fly sparge on my 3v system, which contributes about an hour to my brew day. Based on various posts on this forum, particularly by Bobby M, I'm considering doing my next batch as full volume/no sparge. Saving an hour on my brew day at the cost of an extra pound or so of grain...

I ended up putting them on after the regulators on the keg side. I liked the idea of protecting the regulators from anything coming from the kegs (even though I have check valves in the gas-in QDs). It would be nice though to have them before as well for leak testing. Maybe do both but that...

I also chose to put my shutoff valves after the regulators instead of before

Much, much faster response times. With this RIMS setup, the closed loop only has about a 1/2 gallon of water to heat. From a brew day point of view, it's just like switching on a RIMS tube.

For the most part, this why I moved to an external HERMS system with a high wattage RIMS running a closed hot water loop in a CFC. Zero chance now of scorching and it's as responsive as standard RIMS. I can also run pretty much any flow rate I want. If one is determined to use a 2- or 3-vessel...

On thing in regards to flow rate, is I purposely keep the flow rate in the 1 gal/min range (or even somewhat less) since I worry about compacting my mash bed and/or channeling if I try to crank the flow. With a 5500W RIMS element, I have no doubt it will keep up with a 2 gal/min flow or maybe...

ah, I think we're converging on something. For the same temperature delta over the RIMS tube, I believe the power input required by the heating element will be lower for a 1 gal/min flow, than it would be for a 2 gal/min flow. This is what I was referring to before in regards to the heating...

I'm not trying to break the 1st law of thermodynamics, but for the sake of argument, and I hope this discussion is not being taken as an argument, what if the setup was such that the exit temp as controlled by the PID from the RIMS/HERMS/CFC was independent of the flow rate up to say 2 gal/min...

umm, I guess I'm missing something here or were just talking about the same thing. Over a given time interval, the flow rate dictates the total heat input since the heat input in that time interval is the mass of hot wort that is introduced to the MT via the recirc multiplied by its specific...

I certainly agree it is an energy balance. I guess where I was coming from is that if the hot wort entering the mash tun in the recirculation is always the final temperature of the desired step (assuming this power is available), the time for the water+grain in the MT to reach the final...