Hybrid Fly Sparge Technique

[bspisak]

So is the overall opinion that you shouldn't use this method with a straight braid in a rectangle cooler?

If you have a straight braid, batch sparge. If you want to fly sparge, use a manifold or false bottom or you're efficiency will drop.

See my previous post

The manifold allows even rinsing of the grain bed. If you try this with a simple straight braid instead, your efficiency will drop due to classic channeling issues. A circular braid will be a bit better. A manifold design is usually quite good and a false bottom typically the best.

 

[Joker]

If you add to much water into the mashtun will it throw off your efficiency? I did an AG this weekend and put a substantial amount of water into the mash tun and didn't reach the OG missed by .02, I am guessing I left a lot of sugar in the mashtun because of all the liquid that was still in there.

 

[JayB240]

I use a IPhone App called Sparge Pal to calculate Mash Water amounts and temp.
There are online tools also

http://www.appolicious.com/tech/apps/60020-sparge-pal-david-parker

 

[wandering]

Is there something "special" about the "2-3 inch above grain" rule that must be respected?-ben

I haven't started AG yet so I'm trying to understand WHY/HOW fly sparging is more efficient than batch... and after reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that the 2-3 inches IS special.

Both methods should soak the grain equally well (since the top 2 inches of a fly is basically a 2 inch batch). So why hasn't anyone achieved the same efficiency by:

1. Introducing the ENTIRE amount of sparge water carefully (to avoid mixing the mash and the sparge), then
2. Reducing the output flow rate for a longer sparge?

The one problem I see with the above 2 modifications is that once the sparge time is increased, the wort is mixing with the clear sparge water. So the grain is soaked in water which has already has some sugars -- reducing efficiency. Having ONLY 2-3 inches of water above the grain bed reduces this mixing. The wort is drained before more sparge water is added to the tun... and should be more concentrated

If this is the real reason for increased efficiency, then it may be worthwhile attempting to reduce or eliminating the 2 inches altogether (as in multiple batch run-offs).

 

[brewchez]

I haven't started AG yet so I'm trying to understand WHY/HOW fly sparging is more efficient than batch... and after reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that the 2-3 inches IS special.

In most cases the two methods are the same with respect to efficiency. The factor that creates any difference relates to the deadspace in the tun. Primarily how the wort is drained when use a pick up tube set-up, like in a round beverage cooler where the bottom of the tun is below the drain port and some sort of tube set up is used pick the wort off the bottom and out the port.

In a fly set up the mash is being constantly diluted until the final gravity is reached coming out of the tun. In batch sparging the dilution happens in one step (the addition of the sparge after the first draining). But during draining once the liquid falls below the level of the input below the dip tube suction is lost, the siphon fails on the dip tube. There is a certain amount of concentrated wort still in the tun. You add water this dilutes it out, and the run off starts again. But again once suction is lost that's it and you leave a percentage of wort behind (which is now diluted of course). This small loss does't happen with this setup in fly mode. I have tried it a handful of times to compare.

Now in the classic pictures of Denny Conn's Easy Batch sparge photos, his tun doesn't do a pick up. The outlet port of that rectangular cooler is almost right at the base of the cooler floor. That setup doesn't loose suction until there is very little wort left. I have the exact same cooler and have tried it. That is why Denny always supports the notion that the two methods yield the same efficiency.
In general that is correct, but if you don't do a fill of your tun with just water and drain it to see what's left behind you don't know know if you have that problem with pickup and siphoning.

 

[wandering]

In most cases the two methods are the same with respect to efficiency. The factor that creates any difference relates to the deadspace in the tun....

In batch sparging the dilution happens in one step (the addition of the sparge after the first draining). But during draining ... there is a certain amount of concentrated wort still in the tun. You add water this dilutes it ... But again ... you leave a percentage of wort behind (which is now diluted of course). This small loss does't happen with this setup in fly mode.

Sorry but If the efficiency gain is only attributable to drainage, then for a hypothetical 1040 OG beer using 8 lbs of grain, someone would have to "drain" an extra 0.8 gallons of concentrated (i.e. 1040 OG) wort to achieve a 4 point gain. For the person in this thread who gained an 8 point gain, an extra 1.6 gallons would have to be recovered.

Surely, if the two methods are equal in efficiency and the perceived gain was solely due to concentrated wort left in the tun, then all has to be done is to remove the grain and drain the remaining concentrated wort through a coffee filter. Similarly, we all might as well do BIAB where there is no deadspace at all.

 

[brewchez]

Sorry but If the efficiency gain is only attributable to drainage....

Surely, if the two methods are equal in efficiency and the perceived gain was solely due to concentrated wort left in the tun, then all has to be done is to remove the grain and drain the remaining concentrated wort through a coffee filter. Similarly, we all might as well do BIAB where there is no deadspace at all.

Fly and batch sparging ARE nearly equal in efficiency. I think there are plenty of batch spargers out there demonstrating just that in their #'s. Efficiency gain is not attributable to drainage. Thats not what I am saying. Efficiency loss in a batch sparge set up IS entirely dependent on drainage and deadspace. If a batch sparge setup leaves too much wort in the tun post drain (and subsequent loss of the siphon) you experience a loss in efficiency. If you had no pickup tube and was drawing from half was up the cooler efficiency would suffer tremendously. This is exactly from my experiences with an igloo cube with an braid and no pickup tube compared to a rectangular cooler with the outlet very close (or in the Denny Conn cooler, which I have one of, slighly below) to the bottom of the cooler. Efficiency was gained because less wort is trapped below the deadspace.

BIAB suffers its efficiency loss due to the amount of high concentrated (first running) wort trapped in the grain after the bag is lifted out despite how long one might let it drip back into the kettle by nature of there being no sparge. Even when some people rinse the bag with some water its a very inefficient sparge/rinse. It has nothing to do with tun geometry. If you dipped it back into pure water and calculated the sugar points gain you'd see the extraction efficiency come back to close to the other two methods, but you'd have way too much water to have to boil off.

 

[wandering]

Efficiency gain is not attributable to drainage. Thats not what I am saying. Efficiency loss in a batch sparge set up IS entirely dependent on drainage and deadspace.

Actually, before this thread, I was struggling to find any explanation as to WHY fly MAY be more efficient then batch. However, your comments about losing syphon and flow rate make it sound like extraction (i.e. sugars going into solution) happens very quickly... and that whatever is left in the tun is free "floating" and can be easily "drained" if were not for the loss of suction / drainage. As I've already said: If that were really the case, then (instead of over-sparging) all you would need to do is to scoop out the grain and strain the wort remaining in the "deadspace" of the tun.

Anyhow, I was not trying to spark a debate between the two methods. Batch sparging has the obvious benefit of time and ease. If it makes you feel better, I will amend my initial query to "Does the water level affect the efficiency of fly-sparging?" which is similar to another question in this thread. (As most experts state, efficiency for the homebrewer is not really relevant since grain is cheap... so for me, it is only an exercise in understanding the mechanics.)

... So the theory I had proposed was that if the water level is too high, the sugars are not necessarily drained out of the tun but enter into solution. Less concentrated solution float up above the grain bed and starts a cycle where the grain is "rinsed" by concentrate rather than by fresh sparge water -- making the sugars less easy to enter into solution. (It's like the experiment of trying to dissolve more and more sugar or salt in a glass of water. Eventually, the solution becomes super-saturated and the sugar/salt no longer dissolves and merely settles to the bottom of the glass.)

 

[hunterman]

thanks for this detailed info . I am building my mash tun as we speak ,no more kit brewing for me I am all in now .

 

[JayB240]

My lesson(learned the hardway):
Respect the Mash !
Hit the right Temp
Wait for conversion
Drain the mash slow
Recirculate mash - Vorlauf

I fly sparge slowly with an eye on the boil kettle level.

Jay

 

[CPFITNESS]

so if i'm fly sparging but barely had an inch of water on top of the grain and sometimes less is that a major problem? I'm having a hard time figuring out efficiency because i think my hydrometer is WAY off on it's readings. it's telling me 70* water is 1.008so I think I'm getting false high readings on original gravity. I'll wait and see where this batch finishes at before I get too worried.

I have a sprinkler head attachment in the lid of my 10 gallon cooler and that is fed from my HLT through a ball valve. It's a bit of a guessing game trying to get the flow rates right. my first batch i did bucket in bucket method and that beer came out great. My first batch with the cooler tun just got bottled today so I won't know how good it is for a couple weeks. just did latest brew yesterday and I did take my time with the sparge I just only let about an inch of water get on top, not 2 or 3

 

[TrubHead]

BierMuncher - thanks for posting. Going to try this method (hope I got it all clear) next time brewing.

 

[TrubHead]

OG went down a bit. Back to batch sparging or maybe something in between.

 

[tennesseean_87]

I just brewed a BDSA expecting 65% efficiency and 1.078 OG. I used the method outlined by wildwest above, and got 84% efficiency and OG of 1.098. I'll definitely do this for big beers, but I'm not sure its worth the hassle for medium and lower gravity beers. That's my best efficiency yet, though!

 

[BierMuncher]

Just updated the original post with a quick video of my ugly bucket in action.

 

[PistolsAtDawn]

I use this method thanks to this thread, and I have to say I get great results. Usually efficiency in the high 80s with the corona-style mill I was using. Possibly more with the new Barley Crusher I just got.

I'm curious about the hot water bucket in your video. What are those metal doodads sticking out of the side for?

 

[AmandaK]

Haha, I had no idea I was using the BM "sauce ladle quick fly sparge method" all this time!

I float a Tupperware lid on top of my sparge water in my MLT and slowly pour in 180* water on top of it. Great minds think alike?

 

[TucsonBrew]

Question for the group, I get the impression that the efficiency in fly sparging is largely influenced by the quantity of sparge water. Is that correct? I tried fly sparging last weekend for the first time using Palmer's method of pouring water onto a plastic lid floating in the mashtun. I spent 30 to 45 minutes draining/adding sparge water to get to my boil volume. I ended up with an efficiency of only 65% which was less than the 70% I was getting from batch sparging. Having read through this thread I see a few areas where my efficiency could have suffered and am trying to figure out what modifications to my approach would be most beneficial. The first area is that prior to sparging I did a substantial infusion of water to attempt mash out. I waited 10 minutes and then started sparging with my remaining water. Between my mash water (1.5 qt per pound of grain) and the infusion to mash out I only had about 1.25 gallons of water left to sparge with. It sounds like most people are sparging with a lot more water. Do I want to have more water even if I am not going to drain it all into my boil pot? The second thing is that I was not focused on adding water at the same rate as I was draining. I was more concerned about the rate of flow coming out of the tun. With my mashout infusion the water level was well above the grain bed so I thought that would be ok. I appreciate any advice as to where I may have gone wrong. Thanks.

 

[tennesseean_87]

Mash with less. I don't do a mashout, but drain the first runnings and bring the temp up immediately to avoid your problem. Sparge volume also help is batch sparging. Even if you still mash out, a thicker mash will take less water to bring up to mashout, leaving you with more sparge water all around.

 

[mikemet]

Just updated the original post with a quick video of my ugly bucket in action.

Im going to ask my wife to hold this string from the second floor bedroom for an hour while I sparge... she'll love the idea.


But this is a really helpful thread. It has me thinking and thinking-

After 3 extracts, 3 Biab indoor and 2 AG outdoor with a mashtun- I am STILL figuring out things that are going to be very helpful-

The funny thing is- all of the basic stuff usually has peoples heads boggled. The process is really simple. The graphic you posted is ideal - thats exactly what is happening when hotter water is pushing down the cooler wort-

I am brewing tomorrow and using some more info in this thread to really blow out an awesome batch

 

[Zacher]

I've been meaning to upload these from my phone for a while. I built this little sparge arm from cpvc pipe. It worked out that it holds firm inside my mash tun, but I was prepared to attach a lowering/raising arm. I get solid 80% efficiencies with a 15 minute fly sparge for 5 gallons and 30 minute for 10 gallons.

Dave

 

[Frogmanx82]

I get good efficiency with this method. 1.25 quarts per pound mash, then drain. Add 1 quart per pound (170F), stir, wait 5 minutes, start draining, when the liquid level is just over the grain bed start adding .75 quarts per pound hot water (185F) as in a fly sparge.

I use a round igloo with a false bottom and a mash pad. Mash pads are out of favor but I really like it. No voflauf and no partially open valves. I drain fast.

 

[jerrodm]

Zacher that is sweet! I wants one.

 

[Zacher]

Zacher that is sweet! I wants one.

$8 and a trip to Lowes and it's yours!

Dave

 

[jerrodm]

Weekend project, here I come!

 

[Zacher]

Weekend project, here I come!

LOL, SWEET!

Buy a stick of this (http://www.jbweld.com/product/j-b-waterweld/) to secure the joints. It also worked great on my MT valve and any other application that needs to be water tight and non-toxic.

Dave

 

[Newsman]

I use a IPhone App called Sparge Pal to calculate Mash Water amounts and temp.
There are online tools also

http://www.appolicious.com/tech/apps/60020-sparge-pal-david-parker

This particular app doesn't appear to be available for Android phones. I found something called Brewzor Calculator which is supposed to be a brewing calculator for all sorts of things, including sparging. Anyone used that or have a recommendation for an android app?

 

[Acidjazz54]

So I'm a little late to this party but I wanted to run something by everyone.

I'm currently working on my system and I was hoping to get away with one pump and a series of solenoid valves (electric/automated). Do you think it's possible ot use this method? I was thinking maybe I could drain the mash into the kettle and then pump the sparge water into a bucket (similar to BM's) above the mash, and then once the level is right, start pumping from the mash into the kettle again.

What do you think?

 

[vera]

BierMuncher: I happen to sparge the same way. I was wondering why my attenuation was suddenly lower when I started doing this. You mentioned that your your attenuation is lower with the longer rest time. Can you help me understand why?

 

[BierMuncher]

BierMuncher: I happen to sparge the same way. I was wondering why my attenuation was suddenly lower when I started doing this. You mentioned that your your attenuation is lower with the longer rest time. Can you help me understand why?

Take a look at this:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f36/controlling-attenuation-through-mash-times-60576/

Once you move to fly sparging you essentially are adding time to the "rest" because the process of sparging simply takes longer. This can be avoided if you mash out (introduce higher temp water to suspend the starch conversion).