My Super Efficient 5-Gallon Mash Lauter Tun

[skibumdc]

Man this thread is great.
I was planning to do batch sparging when I go all grain, but with a fly-sparging process this simple, I don't see why I wouldn't try this instead.

I'll probably do cpvc manifolds to start and if I want later switch to copper.

 

[retheredge]

>>I think the mistake people have been making is using a coupling inside the MLT. If you look closely at my first picture you can see that unlike some of the copies I just have a 3/8" nipple inside the tun. This is low enough in profile that the copper pipe is able to run sideways across it. I'll post a close-up since this seems to be the one troublesome part for others to copy...<<

Close Up of MLT Drain

I understand the gray item in the picture is a washer but what is the beige item between the washer and the barbed nipple?

 

[jjp36]

I believe that just a rubber gasket. After a couple mashes the heat from the mash and the pressure from the fitting pushing on it will cause it to deform a little.

 

[metaltim]

I know this is way late.. came across this through a search..

as for keeping the liquid level the same.. that hartford loop looks pretty fancy..

Why not just put MLT on a scale! same amount of weight = same amount of water.

 

[WPStrassburg]

Anyone care to report back on the use of the hartford loop? Unless you are running really high sparge rates, it would seem that you should almost be creating no suction on the grain bed and leave the grain in a neutral buoyancy state.

ChemE, you have a RC screenname? I think I recgonize your stand.

 

[ChemE]

Same as here: ChemE

 

[swanwick]

Post #28 of this thread on page 3: https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/my-super-efficient-5-gallon-mash-lauter-tun-92724/index3.html

shows the Hartford loop. I would like to try this by adding CPVC arm to my 3/8" brass ball valve coming out bottom of my large rectangle cooler MLT.

Here is what I am thinking:

1. Want the arm to swing and lock in place to allow variable mash height
2. Want the arm to swing all the way down to horizontal for vorlauf, initial mash out and end of sparge

I have read about Hartford loop downside of overflow due to stuck mash, but I have done about 10batches AG and never had a stuck mash so not so worried about that.

I think with set-up described, ball valve I already have is only flow control I would need outside the MLT. Ball valve from HLT will control inflow which in turn controls outflow (whole point of Hartford loop).

As far as fittings: I think would need some sort of CPVC bushing to go from 3/8" ball to non threaded CPVC, an elbow that fits that CPVC, straight piece for main arm, Tee for top of arm, something with threads that I can put a barb onto the right angle of the T, and finally a cap for the T when it is horizontal (or possibly replace T with an elbow before bringing it down to horizontal.

Does that make sense? Anyone know exactly what fittings I would need to make that work? How would I get the arm to lock at variable angles?

Appreciate the help.

 

[rod734]

Thanks, Guys. It just seems like a much better investment than the starter kits I've been looking at. I think I'd end up going to this anyway....

I havn't read all the replys and maybe someone has already suggested this, but I use a simple floatation devise constructed from two ping pong balls and a piece of stainless filler rod. I drilled a small hole in the lid of my cooler to accomodate a peice of filler rod and simply heated the rod and pushed it through the ping pong balls. One of the ping pong balls if permanantly fixed to the rod on the inside of the lid and floats on my liquid level, the other slides on the rod outside of the lide to mark my grain level. I can the adjust my flow to maintain the water level I want.

 

[shackledrage]

It looks like the flexible tubing is in a recessed/channel portion of the cooler. Otherwise your correct in the appearance that the manafold looks elivated from the bottom.

I am going to Lowes to build one of these and will post the supplies used.

 

[tre9er]

Yes, there is a recess in the bottom of the cooler for runout that the tubing fits into. I believe he addressed that on page 2.

 

[ChemE]

Yes, I deliberately selected a cooler that had a recess in the bottom (most of them do anyway) so that I could run the flexible tubing there underneath the manifold. When I was testing the deadspace in the MLT I found that adding three small slits to that flexible tubing reduced the deadspace quite a bit further. I think I discussed that early in the thread too but it has been years now!

EDIT: Here is a link to the discussion centered around getting the manifold flat against the bottom of the cooler.

 

[McGreen]

I came across this when doing a search for a DIY mash tun and it changed everything I am doing. Any chance for that parts list? I'll probably be going CPVC the whole way. Is everything 1/2" except the nipple (3/8)? How about the ball valve size? And is the ball valve female to female? Also, does the top cooler need to be bigger, or can I get the same size? Thanks for this thread. It changed my life.

 

[Polarbeer]

Anyone one have a link to a 10g version of this cooler? Looking to upgrade my mash tun. My current one looses way to much heat.

 

[ChemE]

Looks like Coleman has discontinued the 5660-708 so these are becoming harder to find fast! I did find one for a very reasonable price.

http://www.sharperbrand.com/products/1910027-1910.html

EDIT: Strike that, didn't notice this is discontinued as well. I too am unable to find the 10 gallon version anywhere on the interwebs. You might consider the 58 Quart Coleman Xtreme 6 as a substitute. I plan on making a larger MLT eventually so I can do 5 gallon barleywine batches and that is likely what I will use.

 

[junior]

ChemE, just built my own and posted it on the forum fro suggestions and I was giving advise that my manifold was to close to the walls of the mash tun. I noticed yours are as close as mine, what is your opinion on the issue of the manifold being so close to the walls of the tun?

 

[ChemE]

I don't see the harm in it and I certainly do not observe channeling since my grain bed is always 10"+ deep. In a larger cooler where the grain bed is shallow perhaps preferential flow down the sides might be a problem but for my design it is a non-issue. This is born out in my 90% brewhouse efficiency. As a double check, I occasionally do a tiny batch sparge at the end of my fly sparge in order to see whether or not the gravity of the lauter goes up; it never does which tells me that I evenly rinse the grain bed.

 

[Erroneous]

I just read through this thread and have a couple ideas even though the original ideas have likely been long forgotten.

1) For the hartford loop the issue of back pressure.
I'm no engineer, BUT...wouldn't the loop only maintain a constant height the same level as the column if there was nothing restricting flow? If so then couldn't you lower the top of the loop to increase the back pressure as needed?

2) For the vacuum pump fly sparge system, couldn't you use a keg (not keggle) as a HLT and pump air in for that and maybe use a rubbermaid round cooler with the nice screw top lid?

Love the design ChemE, do you still use it? Also, I am not sure why it is bad to have too much water over the grain bed, but seems like maybe you could fill the tun completely with water, seal it, and be able to control the flow easily from the bottom of mash tun's valve.

 

[ChemE]

I just read through this thread and have a couple ideas even though the original ideas have likely been long forgotten.

1) For the hartford loop the issue of back pressure.
I'm no engineer, BUT...wouldn't the loop only maintain a constant height the same level as the column if there was nothing restricting flow? If so then couldn't you lower the top of the loop to increase the back pressure as needed?

Correct, provided the pressure drop across the grain bed is negligible, then the fluid level in the grain bed will match the highest point in the hartford loop. It is only creating an overflow weir out of the MLT. One could lower the height of this overflow weir to compensate for pressure drop across the grain bed. It would take trial and error to determine the correct height and will likely be more trouble than it is worth.

2) For the vacuum pump fly sparge system, couldn't you use a keg (not keggle) as a HLT and pump air in for that and maybe use a rubbermaid round cooler with the nice screw top lid?

This seems plausible to me.

Love the design ChemE, do you still use it? Also, I am not sure why it is bad to have too much water over the grain bed, but seems like maybe you could fill the tun completely with water, seal it, and be able to control the flow easily from the bottom of mash tun's valve.

Thanks! I certainly do still use it, it has worked great for me for 4+ years now and I virtually always get brewhouse efficiency in the 85-92% range depending on the original gravity of what I'm brewing.

 

[TrubHead]

Thanks! I certainly do still use it, it has worked great for me for 4+ years now and I virtually always get brewhouse efficiency in the 85-92% range depending on the original gravity of what I'm brewing.

Apologies if this has already been asked but do you scale back the grain bill for say posted recipes of 70% efficiency at say 1.065 OG? If you don't then what OG does you hit?

 

[ChemE]

Apologies if this has already been asked but do you scale back the grain bill for say posted recipes of 70% efficiency at say 1.065 OG? If you don't then what OG does you hit?

I actually don't think that question has come up in this now monstrous thread. Yes, I have to scale grain back dramatically but I always run everything through BeerSmith 1.0 (I dislike 2.0 sorry Brad) anyway so it is no trouble. I just pay attention to the percentages each grain contributes to the grist. I've started thinking about my haus ale in % now as standard procedure. I love special/best bitters and have had great success with 10% table sugar, 10% crystal malt, 10% biscuit malt (love me some biscuit), and 70% maris otter.

The largest OG I've run through this MLT has been 1.110 when I did my 3 gallon MO/EKG barleywine SMaSH but obviously that is due in part to a reduced batch size. That batch only yielded 78% efficiency though due to the high original gravity. When I make my wife's oatmeal stout that is a 5.25 gallon batch and I routinely hit 1.074 with that brew. Typically 88% brewhouse efficiency on that OG. I find as others do that as OG goes up brewhouse efficiency goes down. From (1.044, 92%) all the way to (1.110, 78%).