Spike Complete System

[Bohern]

Well I just poured a batch down the drain. I only used campden tablets to remove chlorine and the finished batch had a rubber hose type of taste. Does anyone just use the tablets? I was told I could but obvious this seems wrong now.

 

[augiedoggy]

Well I just poured a batch down the drain. I only used campden tablets to remove chlorine and the finished batch had a rubber hose type of taste. Does anyone just use the tablets? I was told I could but obvious this seems wrong now.

the tablets arent the cause.

 

[Bohern]

the tablets arent the cause.

Would a high temp sparge cause this band aid plastic type of taste?

 

[Blazinlow86]

Alright, so I am in the middle of a brew now and I'm trying to take everyone's advice about throttling the recirc back to a trickle. When doing so, to maintain my mash temp I need to keep the HLT 18° hotter than my MT (MT@152, HLT@170). When I was running the recirc full bore I was only 3° difference between MT and HLT. Does this seem right? The HLT water recirc is running wide open, the MT is throttled back to a slow stream.

This is why it's typically recommend with a **Herms** system to mill looser/ mill slowly/ use rice hulls to get a good flowing grist which will allow faster recirculation without channeling for better heating performance. I've tried milling tight and recirculating slowly and milling loose and recirculating faster. I get the same efficiency both ways however milling tight and recirculating slowly gives the same result your getting. Many rims users here disagree with this but if you go browse the electric brewery forums this is a common occurrence most new Herms users have. Cheers

 

[Blazinlow86]

Well I just poured a batch down the drain. I only used campden tablets to remove chlorine and the finished batch had a rubber hose type of taste. Does anyone just use the tablets? I was told I could but obvious this seems wrong now.

Any chance your actually using a rubber garden hose to fill your kettles? My buddy made that mistake several times at the beginning and all his beer tasted like rubber hose. He stopped using the hose and the taste went away. Cheers

 

[Bohern]

I did actually so I need to use an RV hose?

 

[Blazinlow86]

I did actually so I need to use an RV hose?

Yes most likely. You could try pouring a glass of water through the hose and from your tap and see if you taste the difference. It was super obvious when my buddy did it. It's possible different quality of hoses won't be as bad but generally speaking I wouldn't recommend it. Cheers

 

[Bohern]

Welp I have solved the hose problem from this point forward. The sad part on the batch thrown out is I hit all of my numbers.

 

[Gibberoni]

I did actually so I need to use an RV hose?

I currently use a garden hose to fill my containers and have no issues. I did not get the cheap brands from stores, its a middle range (~$30 for 25ft). I run the hose for 5 minutes AFTER it starts to come out cold, and dump all of that water. Then I start filling again. I find if I use the water that first comes out, it tastes like rubber.

This is a temp solution for me, currently working on adding another connection from my water supply to right over the brewery.

On another note... totally missed my numbers again. I have no idea what is going on again. Haha. Brewed an IPA that was supposed to come out to 1.066 OG (and that is at 70% efficiency), ended up with 1.055 (~56% eff). I did a fast recirc this time (because it worked so well with my wee heavy, hit those numbers right on). I also mashed for 1.5 hours rather than 1.

 

[Bohern]

I currently use a garden hose to fill my containers and have no issues. I did not get the cheap brands from stores, its a middle range (~$30 for 25ft). I run the hose for 5 minutes AFTER it starts to come out cold, and dump all of that water. Then I start filling again. I find if I use the water that first comes out, it tastes like rubber.

This is a temp solution for me, currently working on adding another connection from my water supply to right over the brewery.

On another note... totally missed my numbers again. I have no idea what is going on again. Haha. Brewed an IPA that was supposed to come out to 1.066 OG (and that is at 70% efficiency), ended up with 1.055 (~56% eff). I did a fast recirc this time (because it worked so well with my wee heavy, hit those numbers right on). I also mashed for 1.5 hours rather than 1.

I have only been off a couple of numbers so not sure what we are doing differently. My first brew called for a target of 1.044 and I hit 1.042. And same difference on second batch

 

[TheMadKing]

Alright, so I am in the middle of a brew now and I'm trying to take everyone's advice about throttling the recirc back to a trickle. When doing so, to maintain my mash temp I need to keep the HLT 18° hotter than my MT (MT@152, HLT@170). When I was running the recirc full bore I was only 3° difference between MT and HLT. Does this seem right? The HLT water recirc is running wide open, the MT is throttled back to a slow stream.

I can only share my experience over the last 6 years of using my system here.
I use a rims in my home setup but the temp probe of the wort leaving the rims tube in my setup is only 1-2 degrees higher than the temp reading of the wort leaving the bottom of my MT heading to the rims. This is with a 16 gallon stainless bayou classic kettle which is non insulated and this is with actual measured 1.8gpm I brew in a spare bedroom converted to a home brewery room.

I agree with Augie, something is very wrong.

When you say you need your HLT temp 18 degrees higher to maintain mash temps, how are you determining that? I understand what you're saying about lower flow rate means that you would need a higher HLT temp to RAISE mash temp, but not to maintain it surely.

Can you walk us through your mash in process and where exactly you are measuring your temperature?

Here is mine for reference with an actual recipe and actual numbers:

The recipe calls for single mash rest at 152F. Beersmith calls for my strike water to be at 159F to account for temp loss when I add the grain.

• To get the water in my mash tun to 159 I set my panel to 163 because I have observed a 4 degree lag between the HLT water and my Mash tun
• Press go and begin to heat HLT water with a pump recirculating it in the HLT
• Fill my mash tun to the strike water level calculated by beersmith (6.25 gallons in this case)
• Begin recirculating my strike water through the HERMS coil (so now I'm heating both HLT and mash water at the same time).
• Add water to the mash to bring the level back up to 6.25 gallons, since it has now dropped due to the hoses and HERMS coil (I could calculate this ahead of time, but this just seems easier to me)
• Wait until my mash water is at strike temp (added acids/campden/brewing salts)
• Turn off all my pumps and close all valves - at this point my mash tun water is at 159 and my HLT water is at 163
• Mash in grain and stir, ensuring that the temp levels off at 152 - add cold water or hot water from HLT as needed to hit the temp (I've never needed to)
• Let the mash sit for 10 minutes covered for the grain bed to set
• Set my HLT temp to 156 to account for the 4 degree loss and begin recirculating both mash and HLT water again with the valves BARELY cracked on the mash recirc
• I watch the mash tun outlet temperature (mash going TO the HERMS coil) as an indicator of bulk mash temp - if it starts to drop over the course of my 60 minute mash, I will raise my HLT temp by 2-4 degrees to compensate but I rarely need to do this
• At the end of 60 minutes I shut off the mash recirc and switch hoses around for the sparge - and simultaneously set the HLT to 170
• Once the HLT hits 170 I'll start sparging

 

[TheMadKing]

I did actually so I need to use an RV hose?

I also like the expandable hoses from home depot - the black ones are drinking water safe and easier to store than an RV hose

 

[augiedoggy]

I also like the expandable hoses from home depot - the black ones are drinking water safe and easier to store than an RV hose

I use the flat rv hoses that are similar to the expandable ones I am actually running the hose from my bathroom to my brewroom every brewday.

 

[Rlawlyes]

I agree with Augie, something is very wrong.

When you say you need your HLT temp 18 degrees higher to maintain mash temps, how are you determining that? I understand what you're saying about lower flow rate means that you would need a higher HLT temp to RAISE mash temp, but not to maintain it surely.

Can you walk us through your mash in process and where exactly you are measuring your temperature?

Here is mine for reference with an actual recipe and actual numbers:

The recipe calls for single mash rest at 152F. Beersmith calls for my strike water to be at 159F to account for temp loss when I add the grain.

• To get the water in my mash tun to 159 I set my panel to 163 because I have observed a 4 degree lag between the HLT water and my Mash tun
• Press go and begin to heat HLT water with a pump recirculating it in the HLT
• Fill my mash tun to the strike water level calculated by beersmith (6.25 gallons in this case)
• Begin recirculating my strike water through the HERMS coil (so now I'm heating both HLT and mash water at the same time).
• Add water to the mash to bring the level back up to 6.25 gallons, since it has now dropped due to the hoses and HERMS coil (I could calculate this ahead of time, but this just seems easier to me)
• Wait until my mash water is at strike temp (added acids/campden/brewing salts)
• Turn off all my pumps and close all valves - at this point my mash tun water is at 159 and my HLT water is at 163
• Mash in grain and stir, ensuring that the temp levels off at 152 - add cold water or hot water from HLT as needed to hit the temp (I've never needed to)
• Let the mash sit for 10 minutes covered for the grain bed to set
• Set my HLT temp to 156 to account for the 4 degree loss and begin recirculating both mash and HLT water again with the valves BARELY cracked on the mash recirc
• I watch the mash tun outlet temperature (mash going TO the HERMS coil) as an indicator of bulk mash temp - if it starts to drop over the course of my 60 minute mash, I will raise my HLT temp by 2-4 degrees to compensate but I rarely need to do this
• At the end of 60 minutes I shut off the mash recirc and switch hoses around for the sparge - and simultaneously set the HLT to 170
• Once the HLT hits 170 I'll start sparging

I believe my issue on this last brew was that I had the mash recirc too slow. Which theoretically, I should be picking up more heat from the HLT/HERMS due to slower speed and longer time inside the HERMS coil, however that was not the case.

My process is pretty close to yours.

The recipe calls for single mash rest at 152F. Beersmith calls for my strike water to be at 165 to account for temp loss when I add the grain.

• To get the water in my mash tun to 165 I set my panel to 175 because it is faster heating the strike water when the HLT is much hotter.
• Press go and begin to heat HLT water with a pump recirculating it in the HLT
• Fill my mash tun to the strike water level calculated by beersmith (7.88 gallons in this case)
• Begin recirculating my strike water through the HERMS coil (so now I'm heating both HLT and mash water at the same time).
• Wait until my mash water is at strike temp (added acids/campden/brewing salts)
  
• Reduce HLT controller to 3 degrees above mash temp. (This differential works perfect when recirc is full bore, I am still dialing in the temp with recirc throttled back. Towards the end of my last brew I opened up the recirc valve and the differential was closer to 5 degrees.)
• Add cold water to HLT to help drop temp quickly
• Turn off my wort pump and close MT valve - at this point my mash tun water is at 165 and my HLT water is at 157
• Mash in grain and stir, ensuring that the temp levels off at 152
• Let the mash sit for 5 minutes covered
• Stir the mash
• Turn wort pump back on and throttle back to about 1/4 open.
• I watch the mash tun outlet temperature (mash going TO the HERMS coil) as an indicator of bulk mash temp - if it starts to drop over the course of my 60 minute mash, I will raise my HLT temp by 2-4 degrees to compensate but I rarely need to do this.
• At the end of 60 minutes I shut off the mash recirc, add silicone hose to mash recirc port, and switch hoses around for the sparge - and simultaneously set the HLT to 168
• Once the HLT hits 168 I'll start sparging

My issue the last brew was during step 6, I had the Mash recirc barely cracked (trickle) and in order to keep my Mash temp anywhere near 152, I had to turn the HLT temp up. (15°-18° higher than mash) Once I opened up the mash recirc a bit (slow stream) the differential was closer to 5°.

 

[Bohern]

I also like the expandable hoses from home depot - the black ones are drinking water safe and easier to store than an RV hose

The black expandable one was what I used.

I think the mistake I made as mashing out at above 170 deg. I messed up and left the HLT heating and my sparge water got hotter

 

[Blazinlow86]

The black expandable one was what I used.

I think the mistake I made as mashing out at above 170 deg. I messed up and left the HLT heating and my sparge water got hotter

I can almost guarantee if your beer tastes like garden hose and you used a garden hose that's not food grade it's the culprit. I'm pretty sure in Palmer's how to brew it even specifically states there never to do it that way for that exact reason. Cheers

 

[BeerMaverick]

This

The mash recirc flow rate has a much bigger effect than the sparge flow rate. If get channeling during your mash you're effectively only mashing the grain that's in the channel walls and there's nothing to sparge.

Yesterday I brewed an amber ale and ended up hitting 80% efficiency for the first time on my spike system with a crush size of 0.040 and the slowest flow rate I could coax out of my pump. It was barely trickling.

Apparently the guy that told me to increase my crush size was an idiot. But he said it so confidently!

I believe I'm that idiot, unless someone else said the same thing. I crush my grain to 0.045" based on what Kal at theelectricbrewery suggests about grinding coarser for recirculating systems. He crushes at 0.047" (and is far from an idiot if you've checked out his site ). I am in the mid-90s in terms of mash efficiency for lighter beers using a crush of 0.045". His reasoning is that, for recirculating systems, if you grinder finer you have more chance of channeling / side-wall shunting. In contrast, on a non-recirc system, if you go finer, your efficiency will climb. To each their own, but I've brewed roughly 40 times on this system and I get the highest efficiency at 0.045".

 

[augiedoggy]

I believe I'm that idiot, unless someone else said the same thing. I crush my grain to 0.045" based on what Kal at theelectricbrewery suggests about grinding coarser for recirculating systems. He crushes at 0.047" (and is far from an idiot if you've checked out his site ). I am in the mid-90s in terms of mash efficiency for lighter beers using a crush of 0.045". His reasoning is that, for recirculating systems, if you grinder finer you have more chance of channeling / side-wall shunting. In contrast, on a non-recirc system, if you go finer, your efficiency will climb. To each their own, but I've brewed roughly 40 times on this system and I get the highest efficiency at 0.045".

I crush at .030 and recirculate with NO rice hulls... 6 years on this system-91% brewhouse efficiency at home with lower recirc flow and no issues holding or step mashing at as little as 1.5gpm with non insulated tun. We use .035 crush at the brewpub with rice hulls (need faster recirc speed there because of mass).. we get 85% average there.. just pointing out theres more than one way to skin a cat. Slower flow allows you to crush finer and get higher efficiency with no negative tradeoff. If you cant get it to hold or control temps this way then something else in deed off and causing it. nothing wrong with what your doing, unless your want better efficiency and thats what most here were asking about so..

its really simple.. finer crush = more surface area and better exraction of starches from the grain on hand. mash temp loss happens at a much slower rate than even one gallon per minute flow can overcome unless your outside in cold weather.

You could not crush the grain at all and still end up with beer and zero chance of flow issues... you will just need to waste a lot more grain.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I believe I'm that idiot, unless someone else said the same thing. I crush my grain to 0.045" based on what Kal at theelectricbrewery suggests about grinding coarser for recirculating systems. He crushes at 0.047" (and is far from an idiot if you've checked out his site ). I am in the mid-90s in terms of mash efficiency for lighter beers using a crush of 0.045". His reasoning is that, for recirculating systems, if you grinder finer you have more chance of channeling / side-wall shunting. In contrast, on a non-recirc system, if you go finer, your efficiency will climb. To each their own, but I've brewed roughly 40 times on this system and I get the highest efficiency at 0.045".

That's also been my experience with my Kal clone. Its made over 1200 gallons of great wort to date. Cheers

 

[BeerMaverick]

I crush at .030 and recirculate with NO rice hulls... 6 years on this system-91% brewhouse efficiency at home with lower recirc flow and no issues holding or step mashing at as little as 1.5gpm with non insulated tun. We use .035 crush at the brewpub with rice hulls (need faster recirc speed there because of mass).. we get 85% average there.. just pointing out theres more than one way to skin a cat. Slower flow allows you to crush finer and get higher efficiency with no negative tradeoff. If you cant get it to hold or control temps this way then something else in deed off and causing it. nothing wrong with what your doing, unless your want better efficiency and thats what most here were asking about so..

its really simple.. finer crush = more surface area and better exraction of starches from the grain on hand. mash temp loss happens at a much slower rate than even one gallon per minute flow can overcome unless your outside in cold weather.

You could not crush the grain at all and still end up with beer and zero chance of flow issues... you will just need to waste a lot more grain.

Agreed about more than one way to do things. I grind coarse (0.045") and recirc with the pump valves all the way open (the line loc has allowed me to do this without pounding the grain bed). I used to grind finer and recirc slower, but my efficiency was lower so it's interesting that you're having the opposite results. For light beers like pale ales that have less grain in the MLT I'm around 95% mash efficiency using this method... not that it matters as long as you can consistently predict your efficiency, but just saying that this method has worked for me (and Kal).

 

[Bohern]

I can almost guarantee if your beer tastes like garden hose and you used a garden hose that's not food grade it's the culprit. I'm pretty sure in Palmer's how to brew it even specifically states there never to do it that way for that exact reason. Cheers

I have gotten rid of said hose and I am replacing it with a silicone hose (not under pressure) to fill kettles going forward.

 

[TheMadKing]

I believe my issue on this last brew was that I had the mash recirc too slow. Which theoretically, I should be picking up more heat from the HLT/HERMS due to slower speed and longer time inside the HERMS coil, however that was not the case.

My process is pretty close to yours.

The recipe calls for single mash rest at 152F. Beersmith calls for my strike water to be at 165 to account for temp loss when I add the grain.

• To get the water in my mash tun to 165 I set my panel to 175 because it is faster heating the strike water when the HLT is much hotter.
• Press go and begin to heat HLT water with a pump recirculating it in the HLT
• Fill my mash tun to the strike water level calculated by beersmith (7.88 gallons in this case)
• Begin recirculating my strike water through the HERMS coil (so now I'm heating both HLT and mash water at the same time).
• Wait until my mash water is at strike temp (added acids/campden/brewing salts)
  
• Reduce HLT controller to 3 degrees above mash temp. (This differential works perfect when recirc is full bore, I am still dialing in the temp with recirc throttled back. Towards the end of my last brew I opened up the recirc valve and the differential was closer to 5 degrees.)
• Add cold water to HLT to help drop temp quickly
• Turn off my wort pump and close MT valve - at this point my mash tun water is at 165 and my HLT water is at 157
• Mash in grain and stir, ensuring that the temp levels off at 152
• Let the mash sit for 5 minutes covered
• Stir the mash
• Turn wort pump back on and throttle back to about 1/4 open.
• I watch the mash tun outlet temperature (mash going TO the HERMS coil) as an indicator of bulk mash temp - if it starts to drop over the course of my 60 minute mash, I will raise my HLT temp by 2-4 degrees to compensate but I rarely need to do this.
• At the end of 60 minutes I shut off the mash recirc, add silicone hose to mash recirc port, and switch hoses around for the sparge - and simultaneously set the HLT to 168
• Once the HLT hits 168 I'll start sparging

My issue the last brew was during step 6, I had the Mash recirc barely cracked (trickle) and in order to keep my Mash temp anywhere near 152, I had to turn the HLT temp up. (15°-18° higher than mash) Once I opened up the mash recirc a bit (slow stream) the differential was closer to 5°.

That still seems off.. Your kettle should hold the mash at 152 for ~20 minutes with no HERMS at all. It doesn't take much to maintain mash temps.

I suspect that what you are calling a trickle is actually just what's coming out of the hose by gravity, and you aren't getting any true flow past your temp probe. Try hooking up your sparge hose for the mash recirc and holding the end of it at an upward angle then and get wort to flow out of it that way as slowly as possible. If it comes out uphill then you know it's the pump and not gravity.

 

[TheMadKing]

The black expandable one was what I used.

I think the mistake I made as mashing out at above 170 deg. I messed up and left the HLT heating and my sparge water got hotter

So you were using the black hose to transfer your HLT water to your mash tun? I'm a little confused

 

[TheMadKing]

I believe I'm that idiot, unless someone else said the same thing. I crush my grain to 0.045" based on what Kal at theelectricbrewery suggests about grinding coarser for recirculating systems. He crushes at 0.047" (and is far from an idiot if you've checked out his site ). I am in the mid-90s in terms of mash efficiency for lighter beers using a crush of 0.045". His reasoning is that, for recirculating systems, if you grinder finer you have more chance of channeling / side-wall shunting. In contrast, on a non-recirc system, if you go finer, your efficiency will climb. To each their own, but I've brewed roughly 40 times on this system and I get the highest efficiency at 0.045".

No offense intended

I tried crushing coarser and my mash efficiency dropped from 75% to 50-something percent using the same flow rate so different strokes I guess

 

[Bohern]

So you were using the black hose to transfer your HLT water to your mash tun? I'm a little confused

I was using the black hose to fill the mash tun and HLT

EDIT: before mash in

 

[Rlawlyes]

That still seems off.. Your kettle should hold the mash at 152 for ~20 minutes with no HERMS at all. It doesn't take much to maintain mash temps.

I suspect that what you are calling a trickle is actually just what's coming out of the hose by gravity, and you aren't getting any true flow past your temp probe. Try hooking up your sparge hose for the mash recirc and holding the end of it at an upward angle then and get wort to flow out of it that way as slowly as possible. If it comes out uphill then you know it's the pump and not gravity.

I will try this on the next brew, thanks for the help.

 

[TheMadKing]

I was using the black hose to fill the mash tun and HLT

EDIT: before mash in

Oh ok sorry, I thought you meant you were pumping 170 degree water through the garden hose.. My bad!

 

[BeerMaverick]

Augiedoggy, TheMadKing, Jready, and others that have done many batches on this system, about 12ish batches ago (when I was finally done tinkering with variables in terms of the process on this system), I started plotting an efficiency curve on Excel (mash efficiency achieved vs grain amount) and I'm up to 12 data points now (12 distinct recipes encompassing about 8 different styles). The goal is to generate a linear trendline that has an equation associated with it (that way, when planning for the efficiency of a new recipe you've never brewed, you can enter the grain amount into the equation and it will spit out an associated mash efficiency that you can expect). I'm happy to say that the resulting equation (that I have so far with only 12 data points...) has an R^2 value in the nineties, so the relationship between efficiency and grain amount is fairly linear assuming you aren't changing other variables like mash ratio, crush size, sparge rate, etc. (imperial stout with 55# of grain has a low efficiency and pilsner with 20# of grain has a very high efficiency). I can post this later if others are interesting in seeing it, but I was wondering if anyone else has done something similar. What made me think of this was when Augiedoggy noted a 91% efficiency, so I was wondering what the grain amount was to achieve that specific value since it will vary depending on the recipe / grain amount.

 

[TheMadKing]

Augiedoggy, TheMadKing, Jready, and others that have done many batches on this system, about 12ish batches ago (when I was finally done tinkering with variables in terms of the process on this system), I started plotting an efficiency curve on Excel (mash efficiency achieved vs grain amount) and I'm up to 12 data points now (12 distinct recipes encompassing about 8 different styles). The goal is to generate a linear trendline that has an equation associated with it (that way, when planning for the efficiency of a new recipe you've never brewed, you can enter the grain amount into the equation and it will spit out an associated mash efficiency that you can expect). I'm happy to say that the resulting equation (that I have so far with only 12 data points...) has an R^2 value in the nineties, so the relationship between efficiency and grain amount is fairly linear assuming you aren't changing other variables like mash ratio, crush size, sparge rate, etc. (imperial stout with 55# of grain has a low efficiency and pilsner with 20# of grain has a very high efficiency). I can post this later if others are interesting in seeing it, but I was wondering if anyone else has done something similar. What made me think of this was when Augiedoggy noted a 91% efficiency, so I was wondering what the grain amount was to achieve that specific value since it will vary depending on the recipe / grain amount.

I would be very interested. I haven't done as many batches as others here and I'm still looking for ways to fine tune my process

 

[Nate R]

Augiedoggy, TheMadKing, Jready, and others that have done many batches on this system, about 12ish batches ago (when I was finally done tinkering with variables in terms of the process on this system), I started plotting an efficiency curve on Excel (mash efficiency achieved vs grain amount) and I'm up to 12 data points now (12 distinct recipes encompassing about 8 different styles). The goal is to generate a linear trendline that has an equation associated with it (that way, when planning for the efficiency of a new recipe you've never brewed, you can enter the grain amount into the equation and it will spit out an associated mash efficiency that you can expect). I'm happy to say that the resulting equation (that I have so far with only 12 data points...) has an R^2 value in the nineties, so the relationship between efficiency and grain amount is fairly linear assuming you aren't changing other variables like mash ratio, crush size, sparge rate, etc. (imperial stout with 55# of grain has a low efficiency and pilsner with 20# of grain has a very high efficiency). I can post this later if others are interesting in seeing it, but I was wondering if anyone else has done something similar. What made me think of this was when Augiedoggy noted a 91% efficiency, so I was wondering what the grain amount was to achieve that specific value since it will vary depending on the recipe / grain amount.

Yes please... this could be a great tool for a lot of us (even thoose of us who can only drool at these amazing systems!)

 

[jready]

Augiedoggy, TheMadKing, Jready, and others that have done many batches on this system, about 12ish batches ago (when I was finally done tinkering with variables in terms of the process on this system), I started plotting an efficiency curve on Excel (mash efficiency achieved vs grain amount) and I'm up to 12 data points now (12 distinct recipes encompassing about 8 different styles). The goal is to generate a linear trendline that has an equation associated with it (that way, when planning for the efficiency of a new recipe you've never brewed, you can enter the grain amount into the equation and it will spit out an associated mash efficiency that you can expect). I'm happy to say that the resulting equation (that I have so far with only 12 data points...) has an R^2 value in the nineties, so the relationship between efficiency and grain amount is fairly linear assuming you aren't changing other variables like mash ratio, crush size, sparge rate, etc. (imperial stout with 55# of grain has a low efficiency and pilsner with 20# of grain has a very high efficiency). I can post this later if others are interesting in seeing it, but I was wondering if anyone else has done something similar. What made me think of this was when Augiedoggy noted a 91% efficiency, so I was wondering what the grain amount was to achieve that specific value since it will vary depending on the recipe / grain amount.

That is very cool. I’m not nearly that analytical but love data when it is provided to me!

 

[TheMadKing]

I believe my issue on this last brew was that I had the mash recirc too slow. Which theoretically, I should be picking up more heat from the HLT/HERMS due to slower speed and longer time inside the HERMS coil, however that was not the case.

My process is pretty close to yours.

The recipe calls for single mash rest at 152F. Beersmith calls for my strike water to be at 165 to account for temp loss when I add the grain.

• To get the water in my mash tun to 165 I set my panel to 175 because it is faster heating the strike water when the HLT is much hotter.
• Press go and begin to heat HLT water with a pump recirculating it in the HLT
• Fill my mash tun to the strike water level calculated by beersmith (7.88 gallons in this case)
• Begin recirculating my strike water through the HERMS coil (so now I'm heating both HLT and mash water at the same time).
• Wait until my mash water is at strike temp (added acids/campden/brewing salts)
  
• Reduce HLT controller to 3 degrees above mash temp. (This differential works perfect when recirc is full bore, I am still dialing in the temp with recirc throttled back. Towards the end of my last brew I opened up the recirc valve and the differential was closer to 5 degrees.)
• Add cold water to HLT to help drop temp quickly
• Turn off my wort pump and close MT valve - at this point my mash tun water is at 165 and my HLT water is at 157
• Mash in grain and stir, ensuring that the temp levels off at 152
• Let the mash sit for 5 minutes covered
• Stir the mash
• Turn wort pump back on and throttle back to about 1/4 open.
• I watch the mash tun outlet temperature (mash going TO the HERMS coil) as an indicator of bulk mash temp - if it starts to drop over the course of my 60 minute mash, I will raise my HLT temp by 2-4 degrees to compensate but I rarely need to do this.
• At the end of 60 minutes I shut off the mash recirc, add silicone hose to mash recirc port, and switch hoses around for the sparge - and simultaneously set the HLT to 168
• Once the HLT hits 168 I'll start sparging

My issue the last brew was during step 6, I had the Mash recirc barely cracked (trickle) and in order to keep my Mash temp anywhere near 152, I had to turn the HLT temp up. (15°-18° higher than mash) Once I opened up the mash recirc a bit (slow stream) the differential was closer to 5°.

I'm in the middle of a brew day and have been thinking about your issue and another method of error checking just occurred to me.

During mash recirc, the wort returning to your mash from the HERMS coil should be the same temperature as your desired mash temp (or maybe 1 degree warmer).

You should not be losing enough temperature from your mash tun that you need to significantly heat the returning water higher than your intended mash temp. So if you are mashing at 152 and you measure the temp coming out of your HERMS coil at 152-153 and your mash temp appears to be falling rapidly then something is wrong. Either your mash temp didn't start at 152 (strike temp was wrong), your mash -> HERMS temperature is reading incorrectly (not enough flow, bad probe, or bad cable), or your HERMS -> mash temperature measurement was wrong.

 

[TheMadKing]

I believe my issue on this last brew was that I had the mash recirc too slow. Which theoretically, I should be picking up more heat from the HLT/HERMS due to slower speed and longer time inside the HERMS coil, however that was not the case.

My process is pretty close to yours.

The recipe calls for single mash rest at 152F. Beersmith calls for my strike water to be at 165 to account for temp loss when I add the grain.

• To get the water in my mash tun to 165 I set my panel to 175 because it is faster heating the strike water when the HLT is much hotter.
• Press go and begin to heat HLT water with a pump recirculating it in the HLT
• Fill my mash tun to the strike water level calculated by beersmith (7.88 gallons in this case)
• Begin recirculating my strike water through the HERMS coil (so now I'm heating both HLT and mash water at the same time).
• Wait until my mash water is at strike temp (added acids/campden/brewing salts)
  
• Reduce HLT controller to 3 degrees above mash temp. (This differential works perfect when recirc is full bore, I am still dialing in the temp with recirc throttled back. Towards the end of my last brew I opened up the recirc valve and the differential was closer to 5 degrees.)
• Add cold water to HLT to help drop temp quickly
• Turn off my wort pump and close MT valve - at this point my mash tun water is at 165 and my HLT water is at 157
• Mash in grain and stir, ensuring that the temp levels off at 152
• Let the mash sit for 5 minutes covered
• Stir the mash
• Turn wort pump back on and throttle back to about 1/4 open.
• I watch the mash tun outlet temperature (mash going TO the HERMS coil) as an indicator of bulk mash temp - if it starts to drop over the course of my 60 minute mash, I will raise my HLT temp by 2-4 degrees to compensate but I rarely need to do this.
• At the end of 60 minutes I shut off the mash recirc, add silicone hose to mash recirc port, and switch hoses around for the sparge - and simultaneously set the HLT to 168
• Once the HLT hits 168 I'll start sparging

My issue the last brew was during step 6, I had the Mash recirc barely cracked (trickle) and in order to keep my Mash temp anywhere near 152, I had to turn the HLT temp up. (15°-18° higher than mash) Once I opened up the mash recirc a bit (slow stream) the differential was closer to 5°.

I just noticed another phenomenon for the first time as well. The mash recirc flow rate did not stay constant during the mash. I suspect that the grain bed become more compacted throughout the mash so I had to open the linear flow valve very slightly more twice during the mash to maintain a consistent flow rate - This might explain your issue too. You start with good flow and then as the grain bed compacts you lose flow and your temp probes stop getting good readings

 

[Bohern]

@DrummingGuy81 and @kj9tonne how are guys attaching the struts to the table? I have looked at the pics but not seeing how.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Drumminguy81]

@DrummingGuy81 and @kj9tonne how are guys attaching the struts to the table? I have looked at the pics but not seeing how.

Thanks for the help.

I used some 3/4 sheet metal screws and screwed the short cross braces into the existing table supports. I also put some small L brackets at each end and bolted through the ends of the table to add a little extra bracing.. hopefully that makes sense.. I can try to take some pictures but it's hard to see with everything on my table..

 

[Bohern]

I used some 3/4 sheet metal screws and screwed the short cross braces into the existing table supports. I also put some small L brackets at each end and bolted through the ends of the table to add a little extra bracing.. hopefully that makes sense.. I can try to take some pictures but it's hard to see with everything on my table..

Yes, please. Any pictures you could share would be helpful. Oh by the way nice rig you have too.

 

[Bohern]

I start ramping up after an hour of holding at mash temp. It takes like 45 mins orclose to it, to get the whole mash from say 150 to 165 then I sparge at between 1.5 and 2 gpm rate which takes about another 40 mins or so... dont forget this is on a 3bbl system.. I did the same at home which took way less time and sparge at 1gpm pr less.

Auggiedoggy, I just read this again and have a question, are you saying "gallon per minute" for 1 gpm?

 

[augiedoggy]

Auggiedoggy, I just read this again and have a question, are you saying "gallon per minute" for 1 gpm?

yes We have tried to sparge faster and when we do our efficiency drops. when our mash efficiency is higher than expected we compensate by sparging at 2gpm or slightly higher to save a little time and get our efficiency closer to what we want.

 

[augiedoggy]

Augiedoggy, TheMadKing, Jready, and others that have done many batches on this system, about 12ish batches ago (when I was finally done tinkering with variables in terms of the process on this system), I started plotting an efficiency curve on Excel (mash efficiency achieved vs grain amount) and I'm up to 12 data points now (12 distinct recipes encompassing about 8 different styles). The goal is to generate a linear trendline that has an equation associated with it (that way, when planning for the efficiency of a new recipe you've never brewed, you can enter the grain amount into the equation and it will spit out an associated mash efficiency that you can expect). I'm happy to say that the resulting equation (that I have so far with only 12 data points...) has an R^2 value in the nineties, so the relationship between efficiency and grain amount is fairly linear assuming you aren't changing other variables like mash ratio, crush size, sparge rate, etc. (imperial stout with 55# of grain has a low efficiency and pilsner with 20# of grain has a very high efficiency). I can post this later if others are interesting in seeing it, but I was wondering if anyone else has done something similar. What made me think of this was when Augiedoggy noted a 91% efficiency, so I was wondering what the grain amount was to achieve that specific value since it will vary depending on the recipe / grain amount.

Im going to note that I do not have a spike system. I have a 3 vessel rims system which is very similiar in functionality to this system that I built 6 years ago and have been brewing on it regularly up until about 9 months ago when I opened a brewpub. Now in brewing on a similiar but larger scale 3bbl stout style system with a custom rims similiar to the one I use at home. as mentioned I use a slightly courser crush at the brewery with a 3 roll mil vs my CK at home. I also get much lower efficiency at the brewpub(85% vs the consistent 91% average at home on beers without adjuncts) and hope to be able to improve things with a better false bottom as the one I have now has a lot of closed off surface area.

In regards to your question. we use beersmith and it does a good job of calculating amounts when we put our target efficiency in. at home though I did notice sometimes on beers with wheat or oats my efficiency dropped, I still believe this is due to mash recir and sparge flow and the fact that I didnt use rice hulls.

 

[augiedoggy]

I just noticed another phenomenon for the first time as well. The mash recirc flow rate did not stay constant during the mash. I suspect that the grain bed become more compacted throughout the mash so I had to open the linear flow valve very slightly more twice during the mash to maintain a consistent flow rate - This might explain your issue too. You start with good flow and then as the grain bed compacts you lose flow and your temp probes stop getting good readings

I have seen this with my 3bbl setup and the probe located in my MT sidewall. its not an issue at home where the MT probe is in a tee in the exit.
I do use an actual flow meter because without one its a total crapshoot and your more or less shooting in the dark as far as flowrate. the adjustment on the valve for the pump is different for every grainbill and even changes during the mash for reasons you state so a flowmeter is an invaluable thing for me to dial in my mash and get consistent results.

in this photo you can see the relationship and time delay between the rims temp output in red and the mt temp in yellow

.. if I had actually been ramping in small increments instead of bringing it right up to 168 at 10:20 you would have seen like 10-15 minute time delays between the red and the yellow catching up to it. depending on mash size. I believe this one was a large grain bill as ramping up took a long time. with my 3600w rims. (ignore the mash timer it was reset at some point there)