Fuming - About Ready to Hang it Up

[doug293cz]

I can toss out my experiences about how this efficiency thing works when doing bigger grists.

Efficiency with a bigger beer will drop, if you do it "the normal way", just scale the brew up, without scaling down efficiency.

So #1 is that you have to account for the efficiency drop.

#2: I read in the opening post that the second time you used less water do get a higher density. This will also make your efficiency take a nosedive, as efficiency is a function of both the SG and the wort you're available to extract. More malt will bind more liquid to the malt. And, it's easier to extract more sugars with more water in the mash. A thinner mash.

You can try this to remedy the issue:

If you look at a brew you've done, lets say a light beer which has 50/50 mash/sparge water. If you'd scale that up, you'd be more like 70/30-ish mash/sparge water due to the higher grav beer requires more grains, if you're going for the same mash thickness.
What you can do is use more sparge water, so the 70/30 will get back to 50/50, more sparge water used than calculated in other words. This will make you have to boil it back down in the kettle though, so you're looking at several hours of boil time. But, if you do this, you'll get pretty close to your targeted efficiency without have to scale the efficiency back.

Look at the proportions of the water use at a lower OG beer, and try to target that proportion in the higher grav beer. Take it from there for the next brew after that

Correct. It turns out that the lauter efficiency for a fixed lauter process (no-sparge, single batch sparge, double batch sparge, etc.) with constant strike water to sparge water ratio, and consistent grain absorption rate, depends only on the grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio. For example if you do a no-sparge process, a grain bill of 10 lb with a 6.5 gal pre-boil volume will have the same lauter efficiency as a 15 lb grain bill with a 9.25 gal pre-boil volume, which will be the same as a 20 lb with 13 gal. If the grain bill goes up without increasing the pre-boil volume proportionately, the lauter efficiency goes down. Since mash efficiency = conversion efficiency * lauter efficiency, it will also go down, as will brewhouse efficiency which = mash efficiency * fermenter volume / post-boil volume.

Edit: Here's a chart that shows how lauter efficiency varies with the grain bill weight to pre-boil volume ratio for several different sparge processes and two different grain absorption rates (0.12 gal/lb is a typical MLT value, and 0.06 gal/lb represent aggressive squeezing.)



Brew on

 

[Gytaryst]

... Look at the proportions of the water use at a lower OG beer, and try to target that proportion in the higher grav beer. Take it from there for the next brew after that

Correct. It turns out that the lauter efficiency for a fixed lauter process (no-sparge, single batch sparge, double batch sparge, etc.) with constant strike water to sparge water ratio, and consistent grain absorption rate, depends only on the grain weight to pre-boil volume ratio...

It's funny how easily one can get trapped into a certain mindset and develop habits based on that.

A while back I read something (I believe on this forum) that a lower boil-off rate is better than a higher boil-off rate. To be honest it was quite awhile ago and I don't remember anything about the whys and wherefores - all I took away from it was that a lower boil-off rate is preferable; that's what stuck in my head.

I was just reading the thread "Don't Brew Like George Washington" and noting that 2 and 3 hour boils seemed to be common back in the 18th century. Then I switched over and read these responses on this thread and it got me thinking in a whole new direction. Until now I just automatically set every boil at 60 minutes unless I was brewing something with a lot of pilsen malt, then I bumped it up to 90 min. And that was pretty much my only consideration when it came to boil time. After reading this stuff this morning it was like an epiphany - like I've been operating with blinders on.

I'm excited to start experimenting with more pre-boil volume and longer boils. It feels like getting a new tool. :rockin:

 

[h22lude]

refractometer and pH meter were also calibrated the last time I brewed.

Both of these should be checked each brew day. Every brew day my refractometer needs to be calibrated a little. It is usually a few points off. If your pH meter is on the cheap side, it could wander a lot between brew days. You may think you are at 5.5 pH but it could be 5.8 or higher. A high or low pH could affected your efficiency. Probably not the entire issue but it could be part of it.

 

[Gytaryst]

Both of these should be checked each brew day. Every brew day my refractometer needs to be calibrated a little. It is usually a few points off. If your pH meter is on the cheap side, it could wander a lot between brew days. You may think you are at 5.5 pH but it could be 5.8 or higher. A high or low pH could affected your efficiency. Probably not the entire issue but it could be part of it.

Interesting.

To be perfectly honest I was a lot more meticulous with my measuring and testing and note taking when I first started. I've gotten kind of lazy on all that. I kind of take the "close enough for who it's for" approach now. I use the refractometer more than I use the pH meter. I've always just rinsed it off in distilled water and checked to see that it reads zero . . . and so far it always has. I've never actually adjusted anything on it. I adjusted the digital pH meter when I got it but usually I just let it sit in distilled water for 10 minutes or so and check to see if it's close to 7.0. More often than not I use the strips.

I'm sure there are ways to get a lot more accurate and precise readings, but again I'm more of a ballpark home brewer. If my efficiency was within an acceptable range I probably wouldn't have even posted this thread. But without scrolling back thru if I remember right my efficiency was like 43% on this batch.

With all the responses I've received I think I have a fairly decent "ballpark" idea of where I went wrong. I'll make a few adjustments and keep plugging away. Like anything, if I see improvement it'll inspire me to keep trying. If I don't see any improvement eventually I'll give up and move on to something else.

I am extremely appreciative of all the advice and help I receive on this forum. It's been an invaluable part of the whole home brewing experience.

 

[h22lude]

Interesting.

To be perfectly honest I was a lot more meticulous with my measuring and testing and note taking when I first started. I've gotten kind of lazy on all that. I kind of take the "close enough for who it's for" approach now. I use the refractometer more than I use the pH meter. I've always just rinsed it off in distilled water and checked to see that it reads zero . . . and so far it always has. I've never actually adjusted anything on it. I adjusted the digital pH meter when I got it but usually I just let it sit in distilled water for 10 minutes or so and check to see if it's close to 7.0. More often than not I use the strips.

I'm sure there are ways to get a lot more accurate and precise readings, but again I'm more of a ballpark home brewer. If my efficiency was within an acceptable range I probably wouldn't have even posted this thread. But without scrolling back thru if I remember right my efficiency was like 43% on this batch.

With all the responses I've received I think I have a fairly decent "ballpark" idea of where I went wrong. I'll make a few adjustments and keep plugging away. Like anything, if I see improvement it'll inspire me to keep trying. If I don't see any improvement eventually I'll give up and move on to something else.

I am extremely appreciative of all the advice and help I receive on this forum. It's been an invaluable part of the whole home brewing experience.

Nothing wrong with being a little lazy. In the end, you have to like brewing and how you do it.

Just a word of advice, being lazy with calibration can give you a false sense of security. If you think your pH meter is calibrated and take a reading and it reads around where you want, you may skip over it and go to the next step. However that reading could have been way off and you would never know. If you are going to use a pH meter I would calibrate it every brew day just to make sure. If something went wrong and your mash pH was 6.0, this could be the sole reason for your bad efficiency.

 

[Roadie]

Lots of advise here. I use BS as well but have to adjust my efficiency down when brewing high OG worts. I have an 1.130 wort fermenting now and probably got 50% efficiency vs a 1.060 beer at 72% vs a < 1.050 beer at 75-80%. I believe commercial breweries boil high gravity wort for hours so do some of the stuff recommended in the thread but err on the side of a little too much volume to the BK and experiment extending your boil times.

 

[Smellyglove]

It's funny how easily one can get trapped into a certain mindset and develop habits based on that.

A while back I read something (I believe on this forum) that a lower boil-off rate is better than a higher boil-off rate. To be honest it was quite awhile ago and I don't remember anything about the whys and wherefores - all I took away from it was that a lower boil-off rate is preferable; that's what stuck in my head.

I was just reading the thread "Don't Brew Like George Washington" and noting that 2 and 3 hour boils seemed to be common back in the 18th century. Then I switched over and read these responses on this thread and it got me thinking in a whole new direction. Until now I just automatically set every boil at 60 minutes unless I was brewing something with a lot of pilsen malt, then I bumped it up to 90 min. And that was pretty much my only consideration when it came to boil time. After reading this stuff this morning it was like an epiphany - like I've been operating with blinders on.

I'm excited to start experimenting with more pre-boil volume and longer boils. It feels like getting a new tool. :rockin:

Different kinds of beers often calls for differend kinds of techniques

But, the boiloff rate would me more or less constant, even though the total boiloff will be much greater when doing what I wrote earlier.

 

[Gytaryst]

Nothing wrong with being a little lazy. In the end, you have to like brewing and how you do it.

Yes. When I first started out my methods were extremely simple and primitive due to the lack of everything, and the beer was okay. As my interest obsession has grown I've bought a lot more gadgets, (like pH meters and refractometers), to help zero in on... well... whatever the specific gadget is intended to zero in on, and the beer is "okay."

This hobby has been a blast and one of the most interesting and fascinating things I've done. I have learned so much about beer, the history, how it's made, and I have gained a new appreciation for beer that I don't know would have been possible had I not gotten into brewing.

My thinking now is that my pH has always been fairly close, (within a tenth or two at most) of what the BF calculator, or the Bru N Water spreadsheet have estimated it to be. If Bru N Water says my mash pH should be 5.4 based on the data I've entered, and I end up with a reading of 5.4, or 5.3, or 5.5 - I gamble that it's probably close. Is it possible that a calculator estimated the pH should be 5.4 and I took a reading with a meter that was way out of calibration and read 5.4 when the water was actually 6.9? Yeah, I suppose it is "possible." I know I could be a lot more diligent and take steps to know with a greater degree of certainty what my readings are... but...

Maybe lazy isn't the right word. It's not that I don't like brewing anymore - I do. I guess I'm just not as fanatical, or serious, or intense, or . . .
hell, maybe lazy is the right word.

 

[eric19312]

Today I brewed an imperial stout. I normally brew 5.5 to 6 gallon batches, but I cut this one back to 3 gallons - thinking that should improve my numbers even more. BeerSmith estimated OG was 1.104. I hit all my numbers, pH, volumes, temps... everything dead on. Pre-boil gravity was supposed to be 1.077, I had 1.060. So I did a more rigorous boil than normal. Post boil OG was 1.073 . . . 43% efficiency.

How are you measuring volumes in your boil keggle?

I like that you got a preboil gravity and am assuming you are also measuring pre boil volume. While you are figuring out all that stuff about why your mash efficiency is so low (ph, crush, sparge technique, mash out, stirring frequency and whether it is clockwise or counter-clockwise, ) you could at least salvage the in-process brewday by making an adjustment once you see those numbers.

If my preboil gravity at target preboil volume is lower than expected I sparge more and collect more wort. It will be thinner wort and will actually tend to reduce my preboil gravity but mash efficiency increases with every bit of sugar pulled out of the mash tun. Then I compensate for the low gravity by boiling longer/harder. But I always hit target OG because I calculate my target post boil volume from my known preboil gravity/volume and then boil to my volume target. To deal with hop additions I start my hop timer when I estimate based on boil off rate that I have about 60 minutes to go. Normally this will be once I have boiled back to the original target pre boil volume.

Instead of sparging more and longer boil you could even easier add DME. According to Brewsmith 1.93 pounds DME would of taken your 5 gallons of 1.060 wort to 1.077. I don't much care for messing with DME but if you normally have it on hand for starters etc this could also help.

The key is when you see the lower than expected mash efficiency you have opportunity to make a correction right then to assure the current brew comes out the way you wanted. Tomorrow you can analyze what went wrong with your mash.

 

[h22lude]

Yes. When I first started out my methods were extremely simple and primitive due to the lack of everything, and the beer was okay. As my interest obsession has grown I've bought a lot more gadgets, (like pH meters and refractometers), to help zero in on... well... whatever the specific gadget is intended to zero in on, and the beer is "okay."

This hobby has been a blast and one of the most interesting and fascinating things I've done. I have learned so much about beer, the history, how it's made, and I have gained a new appreciation for beer that I don't know would have been possible had I not gotten into brewing.

My thinking now is that my pH has always been fairly close, (within a tenth or two at most) of what the BF calculator, or the Bru N Water spreadsheet have estimated it to be. If Bru N Water says my mash pH should be 5.4 based on the data I've entered, and I end up with a reading of 5.4, or 5.3, or 5.5 - I gamble that it's probably close. Is it possible that a calculator estimated the pH should be 5.4 and I took a reading with a meter that was way out of calibration and read 5.4 when the water was actually 6.9? Yeah, I suppose it is "possible." I know I could be a lot more diligent and take steps to know with a greater degree of certainty what my readings are... but...

Maybe lazy isn't the right word. It's not that I don't like brewing anymore - I do. I guess I'm just not as fanatical, or serious, or intense, or . . .
hell, maybe lazy is the right word.

Oh yeah I hear ya. I may like researching beer and new gadgets just as much as actual brewing. I never really started slow in this hobby. I started with a stove top extract batch right into AG and kegging and it kept going from there.

I think using Bru'n Water is good. It does usually get you close enough to be ok. Only problem is if you use your tap water. The minerals can fluctuate a lot which will change your mash pH without you knowing. Of course that doesn't matter if you use RO water.

 

[smarch0]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting. Below BSII says my OG should be 1.090 based on the grain bill. I never really looked at the estimated pre-boil gravity field before looking into this issue, but note it says 1.060 (what I actually achieved on brew day). My boil off rate is set to 8L/h (~2 gallons) so fairly low. Now how does BSII expect it to raise 1.030 points of gravity with an hour boil?!?

I decided to check further and downloaded a free brew software called brew target. I entered everything exactly the same as my equipment profile in BSII but got an expected OG of 1.060 for the same grain bill! At least it is reporting much closer to what I am experiencing.

Next brew day I will be using both software's to see if I can't sort things out and lock in my target.

 

[Gytaryst]

How are you measuring volumes in your boil keggle?

One of the best tools I've purchased so far:

There are most likely better products and better methods. I bought this on a whim not sure if I'd find a use for it or not and it has proven to be indispensable. I can't imagine brewing without it, in fact I'm thinking about getting another one.

Not all the marks are accurate but the 1 gallon mark is dead on and the half gallon mark is only off by maybe an ounce or two. For what I use it for as long as I'm within a half gallon that's close enough for me. I also have a sight glass level indicator on my HLT which is accurate to within a half gallon as well. (My wife has an 8 cup measuring pitcher I use to calibrate volumes on every new piece of equipment I get. I can't be sure that pitcher is accurate to scientific standards, but I figure as long as I'm using the same pitcher to measure and calibrate everything - who cares?

I use the sight glass to measure strike water/sparge water volumes and I use the 1 gallon pitcher to measure my pre-boil volume. When I was trying to fly sparge I had a smaller pitcher I used to vorlauf and to swap out so I didn't have to keep starting and stopping and re-adjusting the flow rate. In retrospect, three attempts at fly sparging was two attempts too many for me, as it turns out. So that's a non-issue now.

I decided against a sight glass on the BK for a number of reasons. I have marks at 1/2 gallon increments on all of my fermentation vessels.

 

[eric19312]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting. Below BSII says my OG should be 1.090 based on the grain bill. I never really looked at the estimated pre-boil gravity field before looking into this issue, but note it says 1.060 (what I actually achieved on brew day). My boil off rate is set to 8L/h (~2 gallons) so fairly low. Now how does BSII expect it to raise 1.030 points of gravity with an hour boil?!?

2 gallons per hour is a pretty high boil off rate

Your recipe called for collecting 65 Liters but you stopped at 62. The next 3 liters would have brought more sugar to the kettle but your pre boil gravity would be even lower.

 

[Kee]

Not all the marks are accurate but the 1 gallon mark is dead on and the half gallon mark is only off by maybe an ounce or two.

I used some pre-marked containers for a while before realizing that they were way off.

 

[smarch0]

2 gallons per hour is a pretty high boil off rate

Your recipe called for collecting 65 Liters but you stopped at 62. The next 3 liters would have brought more sugar to the kettle but your pre boil gravity would be even lower.

Don't mind the measured fields, I did not enter those, except the OG. I did get to 1.085 by doing a 2.5 hour boil :S I did collect the full 65L

In addition my end of running gravity was about 1.030, so it would have only lowered the overall pre-boil gravity. 1.030 + 1.060 wort != >1.060 wort.

I have a 240V 5500W heat stick so my boil is quite strong, plus a 20 gallon pot with quite a bit of surface area. 8L/h is actually conservative!

 

[eric19312]

I decided against a sight glass on the BK for a number of reasons. I have marks at 1/2 gallon increments on all of my fermentation vessels.

I love the sight glass on my BK. I use it to steer the boil cranking heat up or down in order to arrive at desired volume. Obviously you have reasons for not including it but I suggest reconsidering.

 

[eric19312]

Don't mind the measured fields, I did not enter those, except the OG. I did get to 1.085 by doing a 2.5 hour boil :S I did collect the full 65L

In addition my end of running gravity was about 1.030, so it would have only lowered the overall pre-boil gravity. 1.030 + 1.060 wort != >1.060 wort.

I have a 240V 5500W heat stick so my boil is quite strong, plus a 20 gallon pot with quite a bit of surface area. 8L/h is actually conservative!

If you really started with 65 liters of 1.060 wort and boiled it down to 42 liters and didn't burn your sugars to that monster element or boil them all over your stand then your resulting gravity should of been 1.093. To get to 1.085 one or more of your measurements must be off. It's not the software.

Just because you can boil off 2 gallons per hour doesn't mean you should. Can't you dial that heat stick down?

 

[Gytaryst]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting...

I have the utmost respect for those who design these programs and calculators. Trying to determine how one unique ingredient might react with an infinite combination of other complex ingredients in an infinite number of situations seems impossible. That any of these calculators can even get us in the general ballpark is nothing short of miraculous. Add to that the fact that each software program is limited by the knowledge and the ability of the person designing it, and is further limited by the knowledge and ability of the user inputting the data, (correctly or otherwise) . . .

I use a number of different programs, for no particular reason. I like BSII for listing the general ingredients, but that's pretty much all I use it for. I do like the mash calculator although I don't think I've ever hit the numbers it comes up with. I'm sure the problem is on my end and I just haven't taken the time to sit down and actually go through it all step by step to see where my input is off.

For calculating yeast starters I like the Brewers Friend calculator, and also for figuring the abv when I get my FG reading.

For my water profiles I use the Bru N' Water spreadsheet. I've been using it since I started brewing and the numbers they come up with are usually very close if not identical to what I get in actuality. I've never been dissatisfied with it in my years using it.

I might like BSII better if I actually took the time to sit down and go thru all the tutorials and learn everything it can do. I just haven't had that ambition yet. For me it's really just a glorified list. I add everything I want to use for my beer and take a quick glance to see where the numbers are, (i.e. IBU's, OG, FG, color, abv). I look to see what it says all my numbers should be on brew day, and I print it out to use both as a shopping list and to make notes on brew day.

I will add that I don't think I have ever hit any of the numbers BSII says I should hit dead on. Sometimes I'm closer than other times, but I've never been close enough to where I have complete trust in them.

 

[smarch0]

If you really started with 65 liters of 1.060 wort and boiled it down to 42 liters and didn't burn your sugars to that monster element or boil them all over your stand then your resulting gravity should of been 1.093. To get to 1.085 one or more of your measurements must be off. It's not the software.

Just because you can boil off 2 gallons per hour doesn't mean you should. Can't you dial that heat stick down?

Yes I have manual control on my heatstick and did reduce power over the boil.

My numbers may not be to the liter(quart) exact, but I just wanted to point out the fairly major dependency between estimated OG and estimated pre-boil in the software. Checking my last few brew logs, the estimated pre-boil seems to be the more accurate one for me.

 

[eric19312]

Yes I have manual control on my heatstick and did reduce power over the boil.

My numbers may not be to the liter(quart) exact, but I just wanted to point out the fairly major dependency between estimated OG and estimated pre-boil in the software. Checking my last few brew logs, the estimated pre-boil seems to be the more accurate one for me.

Once your actual preboil gravity and preboil volume are fixed (actual measured not estimated) then your OG is entirely dependent on your post boil volume. Your grain bill is no longer relevant. It is sugar and water in the kettle, as you boil off water the sugar concentration goes up. I am not sure I am understanding your issue. Trying but maybe I am missing something.

 

[Gytaryst]

I love the sight glass on my BK. I use it to steer the boil cranking heat up or down in order to arrive at desired volume. Obviously you have reasons for not including it but I suggest reconsidering.

Mostly I just never thought it was that necessary. I measure the wort going into the BK so I know (accurately) what the starting volume is. All of my fermentation vessels are marked so I know (accurately) how much I'm taking out.

Inside the BK I always have hop bags, hop strainers, and during the last 15 minutes of the boil, an immersion chiller. All of those would effect the level in a sight glass to one degree or another, based on a whole host of variables. Temperature effects the level in the site glass. When the wort is at a rolling boil the level is bouncing up and down, so determining a volume is basically just eyeballing and guessing.

To me a sight glass on the BK was an added expense and more work, producing more areas for bacteria to possibly take hold, more cleaning and sanitizing issues, more possibility of leaks, more possibility of something going wrong to screw up a brew day. If the sight glass on my BK broke or cracked on brew day, I'd be screwed. If there is no sight glass on the BK, it's a safe bet that will never happen.

I didn't add dial thermometers to any of my keggles for pretty much the same reason. Extra expense, extyra work, more places for bacteria to take hold, more things to go wrong, and unless you want to spend a fortune, most of those analog dial thermometers aren't that accurate to begin with. I have several digital instant read thermopens, remote probe and one 12" dial thermometer. Granted, I can't just walk up to the keg and see a temperature, I have to actually stick a thermometer in . . . but it's never been enough of an inconvenience to counter all the negative aspects.

It is embarrassing when I take pictures because they don't have all the bells and whistles like everyone else's . . . but with counceling, I'm learning to live with that.

 

[doug293cz]

I have been having similar issues. Not sure when it started to be honest as I only brew every couple of months (but have been at it long enough). I brewed an imperial stout last weekend expecting an OG of ~1.090, so imagine my surprise when my pre boil was 1.060! Not to imperial.

I have gone back after the fact and found that the BSII style FG seems to be misreporting. Below BSII says my OG should be 1.090 based on the grain bill. I never really looked at the estimated pre-boil gravity field before looking into this issue, but note it says 1.060 (what I actually achieved on brew day). My boil off rate is set to 8L/h (~2 gallons) so fairly low. Now how does BSII expect it to raise 1.030 points of gravity with an hour boil?!?

I decided to check further and downloaded a free brew software called brew target. I entered everything exactly the same as my equipment profile in BSII but got an expected OG of 1.060 for the same grain bill! At least it is reporting much closer to what I am experiencing.

Next brew day I will be using both software's to see if I can't sort things out and lock in my target.

The only way BeerSmith's numbers make any sense is if it is assuming a 2 hour boil at 10.5 L/hr boil off rate (21 L total boil off.) OG = Pre-boil SG * Pre-boil Vol / Post-boil Vol

1.090 = 1.061 * 65 L/ 44 L​

Also Brewhouse Eff = Mash Eff * Fermenter Vol / Post-boil Vol

70% = 73.3% * 42 L / 44 L​

At top of page Total Efficiency is given as 70% and Estimated Mash Efficiency is 73.3%, and Batch Size (fermenter vol) is 42 L.

Brew on

 

[eric19312]

Mostly I just never thought it was that necessary. I measure the wort going into the BK so I know (accurately) what the starting volume is. All of my fermentation vessels are marked so I know (accurately) how much I'm taking out.

Inside the BK I always have hop bags, hop strainers, and during the last 15 minutes of the boil, an immersion chiller. All of those would effect the level in a sight glass to one degree or another, based on a whole host of variables. Temperature effects the level in the site glass. When the wort is at a rolling boil the level is bouncing up and down, so determining a volume is basically just eyeballing and guessing.

To me a sight glass on the BK was an added expense and more work, producing more areas for bacteria to possibly take hold, more cleaning and sanitizing issues, more possibility of leaks, more possibility of something going wrong to screw up a brew day. If the sight glass on my BK broke or cracked on brew day, I'd be screwed. If there is no sight glass on the BK, it's a safe bet that will never happen.

I didn't add dial thermometers to any of my keggles for pretty much the same reason. Extra expense, extyra work, more places for bacteria to take hold, more things to go wrong, and unless you want to spend a fortune, most of those analog dial thermometers aren't that accurate to begin with. I have several digital instant read thermopens, remote probe and one 12" dial thermometer. Granted, I can't just walk up to the keg and see a temperature, I have to actually stick a thermometer in . . . but it's never been enough of an inconvenience to counter all the negative aspects.

It is embarrassing when I take pictures because they don't have all the bells and whistles like everyone else's . . . but with counceling, I'm learning to live with that.

Hey fair enough and did not mean to look like I was trying to shame you into ponying up the dollars for the sight glass. While acknowledging it is nice piece of bling I do consider my sight glass a necessary part of the BK. Did the measured stick for a couple years and just never going back there agains. As for your objections...
- I don't use hop bags or strainers
- I note boil volume before dropping in my IC to know about where I am and after I remove the IC for the number I record in BS.
- the level in the sight glass is remarkably stable if you add a heat shield (I know, more bling). I'd think the issue would be much more of a problem trying to use the kettle etchings Blichmann uses in its Anvil kettles instead of the sight glass.
- a broken sight glass could be cataclysmic during a brew day. I believe a cracked sight glass would make it through one more batch with a quick application of duct tape. But remember these aren't really glass anymore and so far the broken glass thing just doesn't seem to happen to me
- I have a pipe cleaner for cleaning and don't worry about sanitizing this or any other equipment on the hot side of my brewery.

I also saved the $ and skipped the thermometer in the BK. I'm somewhat sorry about that as I find it annoying to have to keep a probe thermometer sanitized during chilling. Had an inline LCD with an alarm for a while but it was not very reliable and now I just measure by hand but it is annoying and I worry about repeatedly taking lid of kettle and probing sanitized or not.

Last point in favor of the sight glass you you mention you measure accurately wort going into the kettle. I follow what you are doing, if it was me I'm sure I would lose count. Much easier to just set the autosparge and flow rate and come back and shut it down when I reach target volume.

 

[Gytaryst]

Hey fair enough and did not mean to look like I was trying to shame you into ponying up the dollars for the sight glass. While acknowledging it is nice piece of bling I do consider my sight glass a necessary part of the BK. Did the measured stick for a couple years and just never going back there agains. As for your objections...
- I don't use hop bags or strainers
- I note boil volume before dropping in my IC to know about where I am and after I remove the IC for the number I record in BS.
- the level in the sight glass is remarkably stable if you add a heat shield (I know, more bling). I'd think the issue would be much more of a problem trying to use the kettle etchings Blichmann uses in its Anvil kettles instead of the sight glass.
- a broken sight glass could be cataclysmic during a brew day. I believe a cracked sight glass would make it through one more batch with a quick application of duct tape. But remember these aren't really glass anymore and so far the broken glass thing just doesn't seem to happen to me
- I have a pipe cleaner for cleaning and don't worry about sanitizing this or any other equipment on the hot side of my brewery.

I also saved the $ and skipped the thermometer in the BK. I'm somewhat sorry about that as I find it annoying to have to keep a probe thermometer sanitized during chilling. Had an inline LCD with an alarm for a while but it was not very reliable and now I just measure by hand but it is annoying and I worry about repeatedly taking lid of kettle and probing sanitized or not.

Last point in favor of the sight glass you you mention you measure accurately wort going into the kettle. I follow what you are doing, if it was me I'm sure I would lose count. Much easier to just set the autosparge and flow rate and come back and shut it down when I reach target volume.

Ha ha. Good points. Still not sold, but if we all did it the same it this forum would be pretty boring. I think Bobby at Brew Hardware sells the sight glass for like $28 or something, so it's never been about "ponying up the dollars." Once I got into this I spent a few years buying every gizmo and gadget I could think of to help me "make better beer." For the past 4 to 6 months my mindset has been simplify, simplify, simplify.

I started setting up the three keggles with the idea of building a RIMS or HERMS along the lines of Sabco Brew Magic or a Ruby Street system. Now that I have a few brews under my belt with these I'm not so sure I like it. I'm about 99% certain I don't like the 15.5 gallon keggle mash tun. My 10 gallon Igloo cooler was almost new - I only used it for 2 or 3 brews. I sold it for next to nothing just to get it out of my garage, now I'm kicking myself for that. I also sold my Bayou Classic 1036 9 gallon SS pot to make room for the keggles as well.

I'm thinking about going back to the 10 gallon plastic Igloo MLT, an 8 or 9 gallon brew pot and cutting back to 2.5 to 3 gallon all-grain BIAB brews. It kind of feels like a step back to some extent, but I'm finding the more complicated I make things the longer my brew days get and the quality of beer I'm making seems to be getting worse instead of better. Time to step back and re-evaluate.