Sparge device question

[thenatibrewer]

I am in the process of building my new single tier brew table!!! I will be using a 3 keg system and the mash tun will be direct fire and i want it to be recirculating the mash, it will have a false bottom. my question what type of set up do you guys us for your sparge device. and how did you make the connections. i think i am going to use the camlock quick disconnects from proflow. i have seen a copper ring on the inside of the mash tun that runs along the edge of the keg. is that the way to go or is there a better way? any help would be great, cheers.

 

[JuanMoore]

Many on here have found that a simple short length of silicone hose works great. It will float on top of the mash, and is very easy to build and clean.

 

[Catt22]

This is my low tech cpvc solution:

I use nylon barb x garden hose thread fittings for the connections throughout my system. They are cheap, can handle the heat and they don't conduct much heat like metal fittings can. U.S. Plastics is my source.

 

[Sawdustguy]

If you are going to fly sparge a piece of silicone tubing as a sparge device is the least expensive and most elegant solution available and it works like a charm.

 

[Chipster27]

This is my low tech cpvc solution

That's awesome! :rockin:

 

[Catt22]

If you are going to fly sparge a piece of silicone tubing as a sparge device is the least expensive and most elegant solution available and it works like a charm.

I fly sparge and the cpvc manifold gizmo functions as both a wort return for the RIMS and as a sparge water distribution manifold. The cost to put it together was about $10 including the wooden cross member. Not really what I would consider a budget buster. IMO elegance is very much in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Bru]

When fly-sparging there should be +-2" of water above the wort at all times. This means that it makes no difference how sparge water is added. Sprinkling sparge arms are over-engineered.
I originally used a copper manifold with slits cut in it which sprinkled the sparge water, I recently changed to a silicone tube (for sparge and RIMS return). My efficiency remained the same.
The $6000 SABCO system uses a silicone tube.

 

[Catt22]

You left out the very important IMO thing.

 

[Sawdustguy]

I fly sparge and the cpvc manifold gizmo functions as both a wort return for the RIMS and as a sparge water distribution manifold. The cost to put it together was about $10 including the wooden cross member. Not really what I would consider a budget buster. IMO elegance is very much in the eye of the beholder.

I agree it's not a budget buster but I still would not personally suggest something that cost $10 when it can be done as efficiently for half the cost (2 feet of 1/2" silicone tubing).

 

[Catt22]

I agree it's not a budget buster but I still would not personally suggest something that cost $10 when it can be done as efficiently for half the cost (2 feet of 1/2" silicone tubing).

The apparatus I came up with is multi-purposed. The cross member not only supports the return manifold, but also the thermowell in the mash and the digital thermometer itself. The eye on the end of the cross bar holds the supply tubing in place. IOW, the $10 cost is spread out over the multiple uses, so it isn't all for just the cpvc thingy. It has been working well for me for quite a long time. Not that the silicone tubing alone would not suffice, as I am sure it would. I'm sure Sabco would not be doing it that way if it didn't. It's just that IMO there's more than one way to do it. At one time I used a rotating whirlygig thingy, but I felt that I was loosing too much heat sprinkling the water through the air with nothing to gain whatsoever. I circulate the wort at a fairly high rate and laying the tubing on the surface didn't work out well for me as it created some channeling and disruption of the grain bed. It worked just fine when sparging as the flow rate was very slow. I circulate the wort as fast as possible during the mash. I would never insist that my method is the best. IMO, that's something only the brewer can decide for himself. As with most of this ****, there's no one size fits all.

 

[trigger]

I circulate the wort at a fairly high rate and laying the tubing on the surface didn't work out well for me as it created some channeling and disruption of the grain bed. It worked just fine when sparging as the flow rate was very slow. I circulate the wort as fast as possible during the mash.

I had the exact same issues with the plain tube lying on top of the grain bed. I stuck a simple CPVC 90 in there, and rotate it so that it points up away from the grain bed like your 45's do. That did the trick for me, and I get great efficiency now. Like you said, there's as many ways to do this as there are adventurous brewers. No one way will work for everyone.

 

[Bru]

You're right - I did forget to say IMO - point taken.
I agree there are multiple ways to achieve the same result but IMO I can't see how there can be channeling if there is 2" water above the grain bed.

 

[Catt22]

You're right - I did forget to say IMO - point taken.
I agree there are multiple ways to achieve the same result but IMO I can't see how there can be channeling if there is 2" water above the grain bed.

IMO, channeling is always a possibility regardless of how much water is above the grain bed, and particularly when circulating at a high flow rate using a pump. Channeling is much less likely when just sparging slowly. I built the return manifold specifically for circulating with a pump. It soon dawned on me that the same manifold could be used for sparging. I simply move the hose connection from the pump to the elevated HLT and I'm off to the races.

 

[Sawdustguy]

How fast do you guys fly sparge to have that much flow? I have my valves set so I fly sparge over about 45 minutes.

 

[Catt22]

How fast do you guys fly sparge to have that much flow? I have my valves set so I fly sparge over about 45 minutes.

I fly sparge very slowly, but I circulate my RIMS as fast as possible.

 

[dstar26t]

Here's mine ready to get to work, similar design:

 

[Sawdustguy]

I fly sparge very slowly, but I circulate my RIMS as fast as possible.

I thought this whole discussion was about sparge devices not recirculation rates?

 

[Catt22]

How fast do you guys fly sparge to have that much flow? I have my valves set so I fly sparge over about 45 minutes.

Apparently both.

 

[thenatibrewer]

so there are a lot of questions about just using a piece of silicone tubing??? building a sparge type device will not be that big of a deal but lying a piece of silicone tubing on top of the grain bed will be a lot easier. i would still like to see what others are doing...

as far as recirculation rates, i have no idea. this is my first system where i will have that capability. i just figured pretty slow? is there a certain speed (qts per min) that i should be searching for?

 

[Catt22]

so there are a lot of questions about just using a piece of silicone tubing??? building a sparge type device will not be that big of a deal but lying a piece of silicone tubing on top of the grain bed will be a lot easier. i would still like to see what others are doing...

as far as recirculation rates, i have no idea. this is my first system where i will have that capability. i just figured pretty slow? is there a certain speed (qts per min) that i should be searching for?

The general consensus appears to be that it makes no difference whatsoever how you get the sparge water into your mash tun.

IMO, the circulation rate should be as fast as possible. IME, this shortens the temperature ramp up times as you can apply more heat without scorching the wort than you can at lower rates. IMO, it also helps to maintain a more stable and uniform grain bed temperature. Just my take on it. I'm certain others will disagree, YMMV, blah, blah, blah.

 

[thenatibrewer]

Do you stir the mash during recirculation or is that bad?

 

[Catt22]

Do you stir the mash during recirculation or is that bad?

I stir frequently and thoroughly. I stop the pump and shut off the burner when stirring. IME, it's most beneficial to stir well immediately prior to the sparge. This will require that you resume the circualation for a few minutes to allow the wort to clear. It's best to do this vorlaugh circulation slowly to minimize grain bed compaction prior to the sparge. This is the one time that slow circulation is advantageous IMO.

 

[thenatibrewer]

Catt22, what type of sparge device do you use??

 

[Catt22]

Catt22, what type of sparge device do you use??

Take a look at post #3 in this thread. I use that same manifold for both the wort return when circulating with the RIMS and as a sparge water manifold.

 

[thenatibrewer]

Does everyone recirculate during the entire mash process or just while heating? Are your pumps tuned wide open or gated down? I know a lot of questions. Just as an update my pumps came in today just waiting on all my connections thermometer and sight gauges and I should be good to go. Hoefully having the test brew in a week or so. I cannot wait!!!!

 

[Catt22]

Does everyone recirculate during the entire mash process or just while heating? Are your pumps tuned wide open or gated down? I know a lot of questions. Just as an update my pumps came in today just waiting on all my connections thermometer and sight gauges and I should be good to go. Hoefully having the test brew in a week or so. I cannot wait!!!!

I circulate during the entire mash, normally stopping only to stir. I have my pump valved down and probably never run it more than 30% open during the mash circulation. That's only an estimate though as I adjust the flow rate visually and don't pay a lot of attention to how much the valve is opened. The speed limit is dictated by how fast the wort can flow through the false bottom, not by the pump capacity. Exceeding the speed limit can result in a stuck mash, possible pump cavitation and/or loss of prime. The trick is to pump fast, but not too fast.

I do run wide open when chilling and pumping back to the BK.

 

[Bru]

Have you ever compared your efficiency to see if stirring makes a difference ?
I don't stir after mash-in (at all) simply because I can't see how it could make a difference but a comarison would be interesting.

 

[Catt22]

Have you ever compared your efficiency to see if stirring makes a difference ?
I don't stir after mash-in (at all) simply because I can't see how it could make a difference but a comarison would be interesting.

Yes I have made the comparison and I found that stirring makes a major difference in lautering efficiency.

IMO, it is seldom wise to base action (or inaction) on preconceived concepts. This is a near perfect example and I am guilty of the same thing. I used to think that once the dough in was completed and the mash thoroughly stirred, that it would be best to leave it undisturbed from that point on. This was a major blunder and I did it that way for years. My efficiency typically ran about 70-75%. Not horrible, but not that great either.

Earlier this year I began stirring frequently and thoroughly. The reason that I changed my procedure was because I had a particularly stubborn mash that kept sticking repeatedly due to my over crushing the malt. My efficiency went through the roof with a 94%. I dismissed this as a fluke which would probably never happen again, but I decided to see if it was a result of the extra stirring. I have been stirring the hell out of every batch from then on and the efficiency numbers have remained consistently very high. I have tested this hypothesis on two other RIMS systems besides my own with very similar results. IME, it is most beneficial to stir the mash very well immediately prior to sparging.

I fly sparge and have not done a similar comparison for a batch sparge, so I do not know if the result would be similar or not. I can't see how it could do any harm to try it.

 

[Bru]

Thats interesting. I still can't understand how stirring can help in a RIMS system that circulates for an hour but Im willing to give it a try. Im brewing tonight.
How often do you stir ?
I also fly-sparge.
Im wondering whether your crush is too fine to allow proper circulation. In other words not all the grain is exposed to the "flow" but by stirring that is eliminated. Just a thought.
Ive got a crankenstein set to the default setting.
To clarify - does your 94% efficiency refer to brewhouse efficiency or MLT efficiency ?
What is your flow rate (+-) when recirculating ?

 

[Catt22]

The grain bed will always compact to some degree when circulating with a pump. How much and how quickly the compaction happens depends on a number of variables, but the primary one would be the pumping rate or how much suction you are applying to the false bottom.

I stir frequently. Initially at dough in, then again after every rest when doing a step mash. IME, it's most important to stir the grain bed immediately prior to the sparge and then sparge slowly. Stirring at this point loosens/re-suspends the grain bed and running off the wort slowly keeps it from appreciably re-compacting during the sparge. Most fly sparge slowly anyway, so there's nothing different in that respect.

My crush is just right. I've been milling my own grain for a very long time. I know what the grist should look like. Besides, crushing finer would have the opposite effect of what you are describing. IOW, a finer crush will improve the yield and a coarser crush will reduce efficiency. Too fine and you will have a stuck mash or excessively shredded husks which can cause astringency problems.

I don't mill at any specific gap setting. I adjust the mill according to visual inspection of the grist and I adjust it every time I use it. I also adjust the mill for different malts and grains. Fortunately, the mill I have is easy to adjust on the fly.

IMO, there is only one way to measure efficiency accurately and that would be pre-boil. This is technically a measure of the lautering efficiency. I checked the mash efficiency, or conversion efficiency, a few times, but it was always very near or over 100%, so I no longer bother checking it. I've never had a mash fail to convert. Since I began consistently following my frequent stirring routine, I've experienced very high lautering efficiences. I would have written it off as a fluke if it had been a one off event, but it was not, so I can only conclude that the stirring is what made the difference. IMO, stirring also helps to more completely wet the starches and it probably knocks loose a lot of tiny air bubbles trapped in the starch or otherwise clinging to the grain. That's just a theory I have with nothing to back it up.

My flow rate is as fast as I can go when circulating the RIMS. The limit is how well the wort flows through the false bottom. I would estimate the flow rate is about 1 gpm and possibly a little more than that. I have not measured it. It will also vary some during the mash as the grain bed inevitably will compact and slow the flow rate. I stop and stir when this happens, then resume circulation as before.

There was a time when I thought that it was impossible to achieve high rates of efficiency on the home brew level. I also thought that those who claimed to get very high efficiency were either measuring it wrong or outright exaggerating their results. I no longer think this is the case. I'm sure that sometimes it is, but not always.

I have confirmed the theoretical benefits of stirring on three different systems recently and the results have been very consistent. Most recently when brewing a 24 gallon batch. Apparently, batch size is not a major factor regarding lautering efficiency.