Single Vessel Brewing System Temperature Stability

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I use one of these with an old wall charger...maintains consistent mash temps (top/middle/bottom) and flows slow enough the bottom element never runs dry

https://www.amazon.com/Brushless-Submersible-Fountain-Aquarium-Circulating/dp/B01D63A2U0/ref=sr_1_16?crid=1FJJVORO9KVJ&keywords=brushless+pump+12v&qid=1640800242&sprefix=brushless+pump,aps,183&sr=8-16
The pump isn't claimed to be food safe, and it's max rated working temp is listed as 35°C (95°F.) How has it been holding up to mash temps?

Brew on :mug:
 
Last edited:
Bobby,

Thanks for your write up and your contributions. My take away is in a static system you are going to have variation of temperature. The implementation of recirculation will help mitigate those variations and the method that you suggests helps address those variations more completely than just vertical recirculation.

For me, if I can control the temperature of my mash - hopefully in the range of =/- 0.5 degrees F I will be in a better position to be able to replicate a recipe from batch to batch and or tweak to see the difference that mashing temperature makes on the outcome of my brew.
 
The point about the malt pipe is correct, but actually I would say is somewhat irrelevant and the water there is actually mainly just water. I've been brewing with my new anvil for only a short time, but immediately found that doing a brew with the suggested entirety of the preboil liquid, you have a thin mash and the water outside the tube remains almost 100% water, even with recycling into the pipe. Sure, there will be temperature stratification, pipe is over 24 inches or so tall, you won't eliminate it entirely, no matter what you do, but outer water remains just that.... splitting water may make it keep better temp, but is it worth it? I'll guarantee that 180degrees opposite the enteypoint will be lower temp...
 
I'm not trying to disparage your work, it is interesting, and as a chemical engineer, it tweaks my interest, but I'll throw some cold water on everyone. How many of you have a true certified calibrated temperature probe? 5%? 10%
and how many of those were actually calibrated in the past year? I don't, but I will guarantee that you most probably aren't less than a degree off and that most will be off several degrees. does it matter? for brewing beer? not at all.
 
The point about the malt pipe is correct, but actually I would say is somewhat irrelevant and the water there is actually mainly just water. I've been brewing with my new anvil for only a short time, but immediately found that doing a brew with the suggested entirety of the preboil liquid, you have a thin mash and the water outside the tube remains almost 100% water, even with recycling into the pipe. Sure, there will be temperature stratification, pipe is over 24 inches or so tall, you won't eliminate it entirely, no matter what you do, but outer water remains just that.... splitting water may make it keep better temp, but is it worth it? I'll guarantee that 180degrees opposite the enteypoint will be lower temp...

Doug's post #35 explains one reason that it matters. It raises the gravity of the wort in the basket which lowers your no sparge efficiency. Not by much, but measurably.

Additionally, that water is a source of heat loss. As heat exits the sides of the kettle, that water now sucks heat out of the "malt pipe". The double wall style kettles like the Foundry would be less effected by this but that's why I listed insulation as a possible corrective action.
 
I'm not trying to disparage your work, it is interesting, and as a chemical engineer, it tweaks my interest, but I'll throw some cold water on everyone. How many of you have a true certified calibrated temperature probe? 5%? 10%
and how many of those were actually calibrated in the past year? I don't, but I will guarantee that you most probably aren't less than a degree off and that most will be off several degrees. does it matter? for brewing beer? not at all.

If the point is that an out of calibration thermometer contributes to more inconsistency than any of the points I made, I believe that CAN be true on an individual basis. It really depends on what gear you're using.

The RTD/controller combo I use reads 212F at boiling and agrees with a Thermapen at 150F. I agree that it's close enough for brewing. The stratification I've measured in various systems was far more than 1F.
 
Well sure, he's trying to sell his eBIAB systems. I'm just not convinced there's enough evidence of superiority. It's kind of like a false sense of security.

Actually I thought Bobby's custom systems tend to be bag (BIAB) based not basket based. Yes he distributes basket based systems like the Spike solo but I understood his own systems are more based on that really cool false bottom he developed for use with BIAB. This thread seems to really focus in on a technique to improve temperature stability in basket based all in one brewing systems.
 
The goal is to stir any liquid that is below or on the side of a basket or under a bag. As long as the return port/whirlpool is in a location that will do that will be good. .

OK I'm corrected you are advocating this for recirculating BIAB bag based systems too. So you would suggest a return port below the false bottom to do this.

Question you show the temperature sensor in the liquid under the false bottom. Do you design your custom systems this way? I ask because I thought you were advocate of temperature sensing inline in the recirculation loop (I got that from your RIMS with element in a tube discussions).
 
@Brewdog80 The liquor outside a malt pipe, bag or whatever, isn't simply 'water'. It's going to contain considerable substrate and enzyme in solution actively converting sugars. It's very much part of the mash, in terms of biochemistry. Although I currently don't accept temperature stratification makes enough difference if there are small localised temperature deviations from the set value. At least in most home brew settings. Nor does one need a certified calibrated temperature probe. Relative difference between 2 or more points can be detected even if a cheap, uncalibrated probe is used.

@Bobby_M It's not that I don't trust you, I like to base my decision-making on evidence. To be honest, even if you had presented some data I'd have wanted them to be confirmed independently. Several times at least. ****, I don't even accept my own data unless someone confirms them. It's just how things work against inevitable biases we struggle to control in one limited assessment or experiment. It's nothing personal, of course. I respect it's an awkward situation for you to present your data publicly. Quite honestly, if you're that compelled by the data you've collected reach out to the manufacturers and share your data with them. If they're worth the time they'll at least try to confirm the data. If they agree with your findings they should thank you for your time and modify either their system or their recommended procedure, whilst acknowledging your input. Until then I have to express some healthy scepticism.
 
Oh, sure, it isnt just water, but it is distant enough not to be causing very much if any reactions to the malt. It is trapped between two metal pipes with no direct contact with the malt. And it is one reason in my opinion that the guys that have gone to a bag have slightly better yield. I can try and pump and pull, and it helps, but most is still trapped.

Boiling point is only 212f at sea level. My water at my elevation is roughly 209. Now it varies with pressure, and beer isn't pure water at all and is slightly elevated, but still boils below 212.
 
To be fair, it's a little bit like recommending an umbrella to help keep a raincoat dry. A bit obvious and, strictly, not really necessary.
to the point- i agree completely- this is "unnecessary" for most systems, assuming the user has at least a few ounces of brainss in them. insulate your vessel, and stir it. common sense really. nobody should have to be told this after their first 2 or 3 brews.

why do i agree its just a homebrew boogeyman ? you need to get up to about a 5F delta to really start having issues. (assuming you're in typical mash temps range) even then, you're talking about a 1 or maybe 2 point difference in FG for typical beers. its a solution in search of a "real" problem.

now of course, there's the throw away disclaimer- if you dont care, stop reading. but i think its the general tone of the disclaimer, implying that disagreement implies idiocy, which is the issue. it seems to be the general tone of all replies about why you just simply dont understand or why you're not reading what is clearly already stated/posted/etc. (quite typical of us humans that the folks who spend the most time showing how knowledgeable they are (Hardware and Engineering) are the ones who have the hardest time accepting that they can be wrong/flawed in their arguments)

now, just to stir the pot a little here- im going to ask why this should be a practice given what we know about low oxygen brewing?

even multi-thousand dollar pumps used in commercial settings are frequently sat idle in favor of pushing beer with gas, because of the risk of o2 introduction. cheap homebrew pumps? seem like they're probably in the same boat. and the real kicker is the worst culprit of all- silicone tubing. probably the worst material in brewing in terms of o2 risk. you're going to intentionally create a low pressure flow (i.e. suction) in a highly permeable material? for like an hour? just to avoid a 2 or 3F delta in grist temp? doesnt sound like a great idea from an o2 standpoint.

so whats the bigger boogeyman? mash temp differential or oxidation?

discuss.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...

even multi-thousand dollar pumps used in commercial settings are frequently sat idle in favor of pushing beer with gas, because of the risk of o2 introduction. cheap homebrew pumps? seem like they're probably in the same boat. and the real kicker is the worst culprit of all- silicone tubing. probably the worst material in brewing in terms of o2 risk. you're going to intentionally create a low pressure flow (i.e. suction) in a highly permeable material? for like an hour? just to avoid a 2 or 3F delta in grist temp? doesnt sound like a great idea from an o2 standpoint.

so whats the bigger boogeyman? mash temp differential or oxidation?

discuss.
The better homebrew pumps are magnetic drive, and thus have no seals to leak O2 around. Leakage in fittings, and diffusion thru tubing walls, will affect both pumped and gas pushed wort. O2 permeation thru tubing walls is pretty much unaffected by the liquid pressure inside the tube. It's driven by the difference in O2 partial pressures inside and outside the tube. Yes silicone elastomer is one of the worst materials for O2 permeability, but not all brewers are committed to LoDO on the hot side. LoDO on the cold side is much more accepted, especially for hoppy beers.

Brew on :mug:
 
@SanPancho Unfortunately, I don’t subscribe to LODO beliefs either. I really struggle discussing conspiracy theories generally, to be honest. I know silicone is a poor barrier against O2, but it doesn’t translate into ‘highly permeable material’ during recirculating hot mash liquor for an hour or two. And certainly not with any noticeable impact on the beer, in my experience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The better homebrew pumps are magnetic drive, and thus have no seals to leak O2 around. Leakage in fittings, and diffusion thru tubing walls, will affect both pumped and gas pushed wort. O2 permeation thru tubing walls is pretty much unaffected by the liquid pressure inside the tube. It's driven by the difference in O2 partial pressures inside and outside the tube. Yes silicone elastomer is one of the worst materials for O2 permeability, but not all brewers are committed to LoDO on the hot side. LoDO on the cold side is much more accepted, especially for hoppy beers.

Brew on :mug:
pumps have openings. therefore they have seals. gasket is essentially a word for funny shaped seal. these seams in the pump head/housing are ingress points. small ones admittedly. but still seals.

o2 diffusion will happen anytime there is a sufficient differential. and if the relative pressure in the wort tubing is less than ambient it will accelerate this process.
 
@SanPancho Unfortunately, I don’t subscribe to LODO beliefs either. I really struggle discussing conspiracy theories generally, to be honest. I know silicone is a poor barrier against O2, but it doesn’t translate into ‘highly permeable material’ during recirculating hot mash liquor for an hour or two. And certainly not with any noticeable impact on the beer, in my experience.
here's an anecdote. recently talked with a brewer in LA about the canning rig they bought. he said their DO in cans dropped "significantly" when they replaced the existing vinyl type tubing with barrier-type tubing. that beer spends probably less than 20-30 seconds going from the brite to the final can. granted, its cold, so gases dissolve easier, but i think that tells alot about the places we dont typically think about o2 ingress.

see this chart. permeability chart food grade vinyl scores a 36 on o2 permeability. silicone is over 6500......
 
pumps have openings. therefore they have seals. gasket is essentially a word for funny shaped seal. these seams in the pump head/housing are ingress points. small ones admittedly. but still seals.

o2 diffusion will happen anytime there is a sufficient differential. and if the relative pressure in the wort tubing is less than ambient it will accelerate this process.
The worst leak point on centrifugal pumps are the rotating shaft seals. Magnetic drive pumps have no rotating parts penetrating the pump chamber, so no rotating shaft seals to leak. That's the reason magnetic drives are used.

Gas diffusion thru barriers is driven by partial pressure differences of the specific gas of interest. Partial pressures of other gases or liquids have no effect. For gas dissolved in a liquid, the partial pressure is defined as the pressure of the pure gas that would be in equilibrium with the gas dissolved in the liquid.

Brew on :mug:
 
I put this guide together...

Please recommend a valve for this area, one that allows me to proportionally divide the output from the pump. Thanks. Just point to one on brewhardware.com. I've got this rims tube that has been staring at me for over a year and this seems like a good time to put it into action.

1640891516649.png
 
Please recommend a valve for this area, one that allows me to proportionally divide the output from the pump. Thanks. Just point to one on brewhardware.com. I've got this rims tube that has been staring at me for over a year and this seems like a good time to put it into action.

View attachment 753899
I wouldn't use a valve as such. You'll have them on the kettle, right? Maybe something like this:

iu-47.jpeg
 
Please recommend a valve for this area, one that allows me to proportionally divide the output from the pump. Thanks. Just point to one on brewhardware.com. I've got this rims tube that has been staring at me for over a year and this seems like a good time to put it into action.

View attachment 753899
I'd use two valves, one on each output leg of the "T". I'd also probably use Blichmann linear flow valves. There might be a suitable "variable diverter T valve" available, but I wouldn't know how to find it.

Brew on :mug:
 
I wouldn't use a valve as such. You'll have them on the kettle, right? Maybe something like this:

Ah, right. I'll probably just do that.


I'd use two valves, one on each output leg of the "T". I'd also probably use Blichmann linear flow valves. There might be a suitable "variable diverter T valve" available, but I wouldn't know how to find it.

Brew on :mug:

Hmmm, that's pretty nifty. I wonder though what the advantage of that is over the normal 1/4-turn ball valve. I guess finer control, but will I need that? Crystal ball is cloudy.
 
Instead of silicone tubing or stainless steel, you could spring for real transfer hoses.
https://brewhose.com/products/vintner-reserve-hose.htmlMorebeer (and other sites) sell 5' hoses for north of $200, but about half of that seems to be the swaged TC connectors. I've seen this type of hose used in commercial breweries using a TC-barb fitting and a hose clamp. It looks like you can get bulk hose for $13-15 per foot (5' minimum) and @Bobby_M sells 1.5" TC-1" hose barbs for $14, so you could make a 5' hose with TC ends for about $100.

Definitely costs more than silicone, but these are chlorobutyl hoses with EPDM covers, so they have much lower oxygen permeability.
 
Hmmm, that's pretty nifty. I wonder though what the advantage of that is over the normal 1/4-turn ball valve. I guess finer control, but will I need that? Crystal ball is cloudy.
1/4 turn ball valves are very non-linear, and difficult to get fine flow adjustment with, but might be adequate. Maybe a linear valve for the mash top return, and a 1/4 turn on the low return, just to provide some back pressure to force adequate flow thru the linear valve to the mash top. You only really need one fine control, at most.

Brew on :mug:
 
I'm not a fan of single vessel brewing systems but I do have Bobby's RIMS system that I utilize on my cooler mash tun system that I can obtain my mash temps within 1 deg F. I can even swap out my mash cooler with a lager mash tun for my higher gravity batches as well as easily do step mashes. My system works so well for me that I have no intentions of "upgrading" my system in the future. The second inkbird is to confirm the temps in the mashtun via a thermowell in the mashtun.

IMG_0329.jpg
 
@Bobby_M It's not that I don't trust you, I like to base my decision-making on evidence. To be honest, even if you had presented some data I'd have wanted them to be confirmed independently.

That's fine with me but keep in mind that I'm not sliding a legal binding contract across the table for you sign.
 
OK I'm corrected you are advocating this for recirculating BIAB bag based systems too. So you would suggest a return port below the false bottom to do this.

Question you show the temperature sensor in the liquid under the false bottom. Do you design your custom systems this way? I ask because I thought you were advocate of temperature sensing inline in the recirculation loop (I got that from your RIMS with element in a tube discussions).

In a RIMS (tube) system the sensor directly after the heating element or in the outflow of the RIMS tube is the ideal place for it. It provides direct feedback without the lag or oscillation you'd get if you put the probe in the mash.

In a single vessel system as depicted, you COULD put the probe in the outflow plumbing and it would work fine but I opt to put the probe in the space below the mash because that also works fine and allows a system like the Auber EZboil's boil acceleration feature work properly without running the pump. I don't like pumping wort near boiling except for the short time when chilling begins.
 
to the point- i agree completely- this is "unnecessary" for most systems, assuming the user has at least a few ounces of brainss in them. insulate your vessel, and stir it. common sense really. nobody should have to be told this after their first 2 or 3 brews.

why do i agree its just a homebrew boogeyman ? you need to get up to about a 5F delta to really start having issues. (assuming you're in typical mash temps range) even then, you're talking about a 1 or maybe 2 point difference in FG for typical beers. its a solution in search of a "real" problem.

now of course, there's the throw away disclaimer- if you dont care, stop reading. but i think its the general tone of the disclaimer, implying that disagreement implies idiocy, which is the issue. it seems to be the general tone of all replies about why you just simply dont understand or why you're not reading what is clearly already stated/posted/etc. (quite typical of us humans that the folks who spend the most time showing how knowledgeable they are (Hardware and Engineering) are the ones who have the hardest time accepting that they can be wrong/flawed in their arguments)

now, just to stir the pot a little here- im going to ask why this should be a practice given what we know about low oxygen brewing?

even multi-thousand dollar pumps used in commercial settings are frequently sat idle in favor of pushing beer with gas, because of the risk of o2 introduction. cheap homebrew pumps? seem like they're probably in the same boat. and the real kicker is the worst culprit of all- silicone tubing. probably the worst material in brewing in terms of o2 risk. you're going to intentionally create a low pressure flow (i.e. suction) in a highly permeable material? for like an hour? just to avoid a 2 or 3F delta in grist temp? doesnt sound like a great idea from an o2 standpoint.

so whats the bigger boogeyman? mash temp differential or oxidation?

discuss.

You choose to stir and insulate. My recommendation is a different means to the same end. I don't stir because I don't have to and I can let the system run through the entire mash schedule without my manual intervention.

My throw away disclaimer was in defense of responses that clearly showed a misunderstanding of my intent. That can easily be my fault for being a poor communicator. I'm not sure though. It seems a pretty high portion of the people did understand the intent.

I'm also not a huge fan of miles of silicone tubing in brewing systems. I reduce the total length of silicone in any system that I personally design. My eBIAB rig has a total of 30" of silicone tubing in the wort path.
1640911975692.png


Even when I build 3-vessel HERMS systems I typically use less than 4ft of silicone hose unless someone demands the pumps get mounted on the bottom shelf.

1640912119100.png


If one wanted to argue about the avoidance of a recirculating system using silicone hose at all, we'll have to scrutinize ALL multivessel RIMS and HERMS systems in a much bigger way don't you think? If doing in a one vessel with one pump and 3ft of silicone is bad, then 3 vessels with two pumps and 25ft of tubing must be really bad. This is a fine conversation to have, but I don't think this is the thread for it.

1640912292417.png

1640912370228.png

1640912530318.png
 
Please recommend a valve for this area, one that allows me to proportionally divide the output from the pump. Thanks. Just point to one on brewhardware.com. I've got this rims tube that has been staring at me for over a year and this seems like a good time to put it into action.

View attachment 753899

Lately I've been building it as a simple manifold using a plain tee and then two ball valves on the outputs to mix the flow however you want. I liked 3 way valves for a while but they don't really allow for flow control or different flow rates on each of the outputs. In that above picture, the tee would actually only need one valved output because the path back to the whirlpool port already encounters a valve at the kettle.

In some cases I put the tee on the pump output directly in some cases it goes on the whirlpool return valve. Either place works and I usually pick the one that shortens the hoses as much as possible. If you use TC components for everything, the TC TEE with reduced tubing size works and then the Blichmann linear flow TC valve is pretty cool for the flow that requires fine adjustability. 1.5'' TC TEE with reduced 3/4'' OD tubing
https://www.brewhardware.com/product_p/blichmannlinearflowtc.htm

If you use threaded fittings everywhere it gets much cheaper. A simple 1/2" NPT TEE and a 3pc ball valve threaded in to the tee.
https://www.brewhardware.com/product_p/tee12.htmhttps://www.brewhardware.com/product_p/3pbv_mf.htm
Of course there may be some QDs or camlocks needed depending on how you roll.
 
There is another benefit to the recirculation arrangement that Bobby describes in the OP, and it relates to mash efficiency (specifically lauter efficiency.)

In systems with fully, or partially, solid wall grain baskets or malt pipes, the liquid between the pipe wall and the vessel wall is isolated from the grain during the mash. Since recirc into the top of the malt pipe only does not move this liquid, it remains as very dilute wort. And the most concentrated (highest SG) wort will be inside and underneath the malt pipe. When you lift the malt pipe to drain the wort (lauter) some of the wort will be retained in the grain due to absorption, and this absorbed wort will be the most concentrated wort in the system.

If the recirc also mixes up the wort between the pipe and vessel wall, this wort will become more concentrated, and the wort in the malt pipe will be lower concentration than if gap wort mixing had not occurred. Now when you lift the pipe, the absorbed wort will be lower in concentration than for the case of unmixed wort.

The higher the sugar concentration of the absorbed wort, the more sugar gets left behind in the grains, and the lower the lauter efficiency.

This also carries thru if you do a sparge. For any given sparge process and volume, the higher the sugar concentration in the grain bed at the beginning, the higher the sugar concentration will be in the grain bed after sparging. For example, if yourer sparge removes 60% of the sugar absorbed after the initial run off (a typical number for batch sparging), and you start with 6 lbs of sugar in the absorbed wort, then after sparging the grain still contains 6 * (1 - 0.60) = 2.4 lb of sugar. If on the other hand you homogenize the wort better throughout your total volume, and only have 4 lb of sugar in the absorbed wort, then after sparging you will only have 1.6 lb of sugar left in the grain bed.

How big an issue this might be will depend on what fraction of the total wort volume is held between the malt pipe and the vessel wall, which will depend on the specific geometry of your system.

Brew on :mug:
I'm not sure why you say: "Since recirc into the top of the malt pipe only does not move this liquid?" I use an Anvil Foundry and since the drain is in the bottom and outside the malt pipe, the pump pulls from this drain to recirc to the the top, seems to me it pulls liquid from the side of the malt pipe as well. I have used a turkey baster just to look at the liquid outside the malt pipe and 30 minutes in, it looks pretty concentrated to me. Please educate me.
 
I'm not sure why you say: "Since recirc into the top of the malt pipe only does not move this liquid?" I use an Anvil Foundry and since the drain is in the bottom and outside the malt pipe, the pump pulls from this drain to recirc to the the top, seems to me it pulls liquid from the side of the malt pipe as well. I have used a turkey baster just to look at the liquid outside the malt pipe and 30 minutes in, it looks pretty concentrated to me. Please educate me.

Other than diffusion, which is relatively slow, there is no reason for the liquid outside the pipe to interact with the flow through the malt pipe. The liquid gets pumped from the lower heating area into the top of the mash pipe and that forces wort down through the grain. The liquid level outside the malt pipe never changes so it won't be forced downward for any reason. It wouldn't be difficult to take a gravity sample of the wort in the malt pipe and the wort on the side of the malt pipe. There's no reason to speculate when it's so easy to measure with a $6 hydrometer.
 
I'm not sure why you say: "Since recirc into the top of the malt pipe only does not move this liquid?" I use an Anvil Foundry and since the drain is in the bottom and outside the malt pipe, the pump pulls from this drain to recirc to the the top, seems to me it pulls liquid from the side of the malt pipe as well. I have used a turkey baster just to look at the liquid outside the malt pipe and 30 minutes in, it looks pretty concentrated to me. Please educate me.
Did you take an SG reading of the wort you sampled from the zone between the pipe and vessel wall? What were the vertical and horizontal (relative to the pump pick up) positions of the sampling tip? Did you have to lift the malt pipe to take the sample? What is your experience in fluid dynamics? Flow dead zones are well established in fluid dynamics, and the geometry of all-in-ones with malt pipes is well known to have a large dead zone. You will get some diffusion of extract into the dead zone during the mash but the SG will be significantly lower than SG elsewhere in the system.

Brew on :mug:
 

 
Which system is that, and where is the wort return into the mash located? Looks like wort is flowing up thru the grain bed and overflowing the malt pipe. If this is the case, it is a different flow pattern than what is being discussed in this thread.

Brew on :mug:
Yep, and the one being mimicked here, to some degree, ironically. Speidel Braumeister. As far as I‘m aware there’s only one system on the market that’s designed to do this so effectively. It’s a scaled down version of a larger German pro system and was originally intended for brewery test and experimental batches, before being released to the home brew market. It was designed by professional brewery engineers, who had a clue.
 
It's one thing to argue that an actively heated mashing vessel or that constant recirculation is not needed or that any benefits gained from such a system are too minimal for your personal adoption. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they NEED a system like this. I'm suggesting that if you're already buying or building a system that has recirculation and active heating, there is an optimal plumbing configuration to maximize the purported benefits of such a system. I'm amazed at the fact that this message has been interpreted so many different ways.

Maybe systems like this are complete BS. I mean everyone that has purchased the Spike Solo, Blichmann Breweasy Compact, Brausupply, Clawhammer, High Gravity Worthog, etc must be gullible morons.
Don't forget my faithful Braumeister!
 
The pump isn't claimed to be food safe, and it's max rated working temp is listed as 35°C (95°F.) How has it been holding up to mash temps?

Brew on :mug:
well that's not the "exact" pump I bought. just an example of the size and type I'm using.

Mine is rated 100'c. It's a fountain/pond pump so they don't bother with the FDA labeling...but it's fine for gold fish, it's fine for your beer.
 
well that's not the "exact" pump I bought. just an example of the size and type I'm using.

Mine is rated 100'c. It's a fountain/pond pump so they don't bother with the FDA labeling...but it's fine for gold fish, it's fine for your beer.
Although, I don't know that the producers of those pumps are concerned that the phthalates, PVC's, and BPA's that could be in the pump material causes cancer in goldfish.
 
Back
Top