stever1000's recirculating e-BIAB

[BrunDog]

... and for that $8 meter, you will get a plastic box that displays random numbers.

 

[trav77]

I'm assuming you're Canadian - what was your source for the element housing that fits a ripple element? OBKs housing states that it's not compatible with ripple, just straight.

Also do you have a Canadian source for the LocLine?

 

[TexasWine]

One last thing. Some people mentioned boil off and not wanting to lose wort. You are actually loosing steam and chemicals. I saw a BeerSmith youtube with Randy Mosher (I think), where he said that you really need a good rolling boil to get out all of the chemicals you don't want. Anything less is not good enough. You can always add water back into the boil at the end to reach a volume.

Keep us updated. Cheers!

I'd say a "good rolling boil" is a point of debate. What you really want to shoot for is a percentage evaporation. From what I've read, 6-10% is a typical number for a commercial set up. The same percentage has also worked well for me. What this means that I have more of an easy simmer than a volcanic eruption.

The same approach of a nice simmer also seems to work well for all the Grainfather users. And from what I've read, the Picobrew system never fully comes to a boil.

Most homebrewers are well beyond the 10% evaporation range, but I would wager that's more of a function of their inability to control heat input than the need to boil off 1+ gallons per hour.

 

[stever1000]

I'm assuming you're Canadian - what was your source for the element housing that fits a ripple element? OBKs housing states that it's not compatible with ripple, just straight.

Also do you have a Canadian source for the LocLine?

I made the element housing myself with a stainless shaker canister (I think it was salt)

Locline you can order from acklands granger, there is one near my work so I just picked it up after they ordered it in, but double check the part numbers from the american site when you order because I noticed the Canadian site has no pictures or wrong pictures for some of the descriptions...

 

[BitterSweetBrews]

... and for that $8 meter, you will get a plastic box that displays random numbers.

I agree with this, I had the same thing happen to me after 2 or three brews. The numbers never settle down any more. I messaged the vendor on e-bay and they immediately refunded my money. I then bought another one.

Regardless, it will work for a little while and for $8 if it works for a few brews, your ahead. It's a lot easier than reading test strip colors.

 

[stever1000]

Made the Darth Vader Black IPA today...followed the grain bill:
12 lbs 2 row
1 lb crystal 8
1 lb carafa special II
0.5 lb amber/brown malt
8 gallons of water to start....
Pre boil 7.25gallons 12.4 Brix / 1.050 SG
Cooled wort pre fermenter over 5.5 gallons at 13.9 brix / 1.056

I assumed a boil off of 1.5 gallons which may have been too high since my pre and post boil gravities are so close
Also used 0.08gallon/lb for grain absorption (1.16gallon) but only lost 0.75 gallons from my original 8 gallons

Using Jon Palmer's mash efficiency formula I got 69% using a 90min mash, conditioned grains, base+specialty grains, stirring often and recirculating to hold the temperature at 152F

Using the specialty grains with the 2 row in Bru'N Water, my mash pH is within acceptable limits...so now I am more confused what's up with my low numbers

I am going to try crushing slightly smaller now

 

[BitterSweetBrews]

One last thing. Some people mentioned boil off and not wanting to lose wort. You are actually loosing steam and chemicals. I saw a BeerSmith youtube with Randy Mosher (I think), where he said that you really need a good rolling boil to get out all of the chemicals you don't want. Anything less is not good enough. You can always add water back into the boil at the end to reach a volume.

Keep us updated. Cheers!

I checked the BeerSmith podcast and it was:

Boiling Home Brewed Beer with Dr Charlie Bamforth - BeerSmith Podcast #121

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDBKUCkg8cM[/ame]

Not Randy Mosher.

 

[stever1000]

I'm still skeptical of pH. I don't recall if you said, but have you done any dark beers, which would have lower mash pH, and seen the same issues?

Tried a dark beer today and didn't change much...69% mash efficiency which makes me think it's not the pH

 

[BrunDog]

That's about right for no-sparge.

 

[stever1000]

That's about right for no-sparge.

I thought near 80% was ideal for full volume biab mashing

 

[doug293cz]

I thought near 80% was ideal for full volume biab mashing

The following chart shows what you can expect at 100% conversion efficiency (@ 100% conversion, mash efficiency = lauter efficiency.)



If your numbers are lower than what's on the chart, then your conversion efficiency is causing a problem. Have you independently checked your conversion efficiency (I know you saw my post elsewhere on how to calculate it)?

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Made the Darth Vader Black IPA today...followed the grain bill:
12 lbs 2 row
1 lb crystal 8
1 lb carafa special II
0.5 lb amber/brown malt
8 gallons of water to start....
Pre boil 7.25gallons 12.4 Brix / 1.050 SG
Cooled wort pre fermenter over 5.5 gallons at 13.9 brix / 1.056

I assumed a boil off of 1.5 gallons which may have been too high since my pre and post boil gravities are so close
Also used 0.08gallon/lb for grain absorption (1.16gallon) but only lost 0.75 gallons from my original 8 gallons

Plugging your volume and SG numbers into my mash simulator, I get the following:

Mash Efficiency: 70%
Conversion Efficiency: 85%
Lauter Efficiency: 83%​

However, to get 7.25 gal pre-boil from 8 gal strike water and 14.5 lb of grain, your calculated grain absorption was 0.052 gal/lb. This is an improbably low absorption number. What temperatures where your strike volume and pre-boil volumes measured at?

Brew on

 

[stever1000]

The following chart shows what you can expect at 100% conversion efficiency (@ 100% conversion, mash efficiency = lauter efficiency.)

View attachment 378247

If your numbers are lower than what's on the chart, then your conversion efficiency is causing a problem. Have you independently checked your conversion efficiency (I know you saw my post elsewhere on how to calculate it)?

Brew on

Is that dry grain or wet grain weight?
I used 14.5 lbs of dry grain / 7.25 lb pre boil volume = 2
I assumed 0.06 grain absorption so my lauter efficiency should be 81%. Since my mash efficiency doesn't equal lauter efficiency (by a long shot) I definitely need to do the math for checking my conversion efficiency next.

 

[stever1000]

Plugging your volume and SG numbers into my mash simulator, I get the following:

Mash Efficiency: 70%
Conversion Efficiency: 85%
Lauter Efficiency: 83%​

However, to get 7.25 gal pre-boil from 8 gal strike water and 14.5 lb of grain, your calculated grain absorption was 0.052 gal/lb. This is an improbably low absorption number. What temperatures where your strike volume and pre-boil volumes measured at?

Brew on

That may be my mistake... 8gallons of cold when heated (thermal expansion) water expands 4% (approx) so I would actually have 8.32 gallons pre-mash...I didn't think of checking the new volume on my kettle before dropping in the bag. doh...

7.25 gallons is measured after I have squeezed as much as I can out of the bag at 158F as the temperature is rising to boil

 

[doug293cz]

Is that dry grain or wet grain weight?
I used 14.5 lbs of dry grain / 7.25 lb pre boil volume = 2
I assumed 0.06 grain absorption so my lauter efficiency should be 81%. Since my mash efficiency doesn't equal lauter efficiency (by a long shot) I definitely need to do the math for checking my conversion efficiency next.

Chart is based on "as is" grain weight, assuming 4% moisture content in the as-is grain.

That may be my mistake... 8gallons of cold when heated (thermal expansion) water expands 4% (approx) so I would actually have 8.32 gallons pre-mash...I didn't think of checking the new volume on my kettle before dropping in the bag. doh...

7.25 gallons is measured after I have squeezed as much as I can out of the bag at 158F as the temperature is rising to boil

My calculations assume all volumes at 68˚F (20˚C.) So, your pre-boil volume would be lower if corrected for temperature, which would drop your lauter efficiency a little. The conversion efficiency number wouldn't change however, since it is based on grain weight, strike volume and mash SG (which equals pre-boil SG for no-sparge.)

Brew on

 

[stever1000]

Plugging your volume and SG numbers into my mash simulator, I get the following:

Mash Efficiency: 70%
Conversion Efficiency: 85%
Lauter Efficiency: 83%​

However, to get 7.25 gal pre-boil from 8 gal strike water and 14.5 lb of grain, your calculated grain absorption was 0.052 gal/lb. This is an improbably low absorption number. What temperatures where your strike volume and pre-boil volumes measured at?

Brew on

Okay, I followed your forumlas in the other thread and I also got 85% conversion efficiency.

For lauter effieciency I used:
LE = 100% * (pre-boil volume)/(pre-boil volume + grain absorbtion volume)
grain absorbtion volume is approximated at 0.06 gal/lb for a hard squeeze = 0.87gallon

LE = 100%*(7.25)/(7.25+0.87)
LE = 89% - which I assume would be lower than I expect due to any other losses in the bag or drips on the floor

Am I doing this wrong?

 

[stever1000]

Am I on the right track by reducing my crush slightly and doing some sort of sparge to increase my efficiency?

 

[stever1000]

I adjusted my mill to ~0.035" gap and I will try double crushing as well like others have had good luck in the other thread...

Brewing tomorrow SMASH with acid malt to help my pH. Should be interesting...

 

[stever1000]

Brewed another saison today (Shipwrecked Saison)

9 lbs pils
3 lbs wheat
0.5 lb vienna
4oz acid malt (as per recipe)

Reduced my crush to 0.035" and tried to double crush but the husks tore a lot and I had trouble feeding the grain through so I single crushed 90% of the grain

8 gallons cold water into kettle (8.25gallon pre-mash after expansion)
12.75lb grain total
7.5gallons post mash (lots of squeezing) @ 11.6 or 11.7 brix = 1.049 SG
Post boil 14.4 brix = 1.061 SG

Using John Palmers mash efficiency formula (excluding acid malt since it has no extract potential)
max: 61.7
act: 49
mash eff = 79.5%

 

[stever1000]

I did the conversion efficiency formula for this batch and got 96% conversion...

BUT I just realized that MAYBE I am finding plato_act wrong?

If my refract says 11.6/11.7 brix - I was using this chart to find the equivalent plato (11.6 brix = 12.1 plato) which uses a correction factor of 1.04. SO I need to confirm this is the same as my refract

http://braukaiser.com/documents/Kaiser_Brix_Plato_SG_table.pdf

 

[doug293cz]

Brewed another saison today (Shipwrecked Saison)

9 lbs pils
3 lbs wheat
0.5 lb vienna
4oz acid malt (as per recipe)

Reduced my crush to 0.035" and tried to double crush but the husks tore a lot and I had trouble feeding the grain through so I single crushed 90% of the grain

8 gallons cold water into kettle (8.25gallon pre-mash after expansion)
12.75lb grain total
7.5gallons post mash (lots of squeezing) @ 11.6 or 11.7 brix = 1.049 SG
Post boil 14.4 brix = 1.061 SG

Using John Palmers mash efficiency formula (excluding acid malt since it has no extract potential)
max: 61.7
act: 49
mash eff = 79.5%

Where did you read that acid malt has no extract potential? The database in BeerSmith lists a potential between 1.027 and 1.036, depending on supplier.

If I include the acid malt, I get your mash efficiency at 78%

I did the conversion efficiency formula for this batch and got 96% conversion...

BUT I just realized that MAYBE I am finding plato_act wrong?

If my refract says 11.6/11.7 brix - I was using this chart to find the equivalent plato (11.6 brix = 12.1 plato) which uses a correction factor of 1.04. SO I need to confirm this is the same as my refract

http://braukaiser.com/documents/Kaiser_Brix_Plato_SG_table.pdf

I also get 96% conversion efficiency excluding the acid malt, but get 94 - 95% if I include it. Either way, that's a big improvement from what you were getting!

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Okay, I followed your forumlas in the other thread and I also got 85% conversion efficiency.

For lauter effieciency I used:
LE = 100% * (pre-boil volume)/(pre-boil volume + grain absorbtion volume)
grain absorbtion volume is approximated at 0.06 gal/lb for a hard squeeze = 0.87gallon

LE = 100%*(7.25)/(7.25+0.87)
LE = 89% - which I assume would be lower than I expect due to any other losses in the bag or drips on the floor

Am I doing this wrong?

Sorry for the delayed response, but I have had a terrible time trying to reply. I lost one draft due to user error :smack: , and two more drafts because HBT refused to accept the post submissions. Hopefully the fourth time will be the charm.

Yes, you are doing it wrong. The denominator in the lauter efficiency formula needs to be the volume of wort in the mash, not the strike volume (which is what your two terms add up to.) The wort volume is larger than the strike volume because of the volume of the dissolved extract (mostly sugar.)

The correct way to do the calculation:

1. Convert the mash wort SG to ˚Plato using the following formula:
   ˚Plato = -616.868 + 1111.14 * SG - 630.272 * SG^2 + 135.997 * SG^3
   ​
2. Calculate the weight of extract in the wort using:
   Mash_Extract_Weight = ˚Plato * Water_Weight / (100˚P - ˚Plato)
   Where: Water_Weight = Strike_Volume * 8.3304 lb/gal​
3. Calculate the weight of the wort in the mash using:
   Mash_Wort_Weight = Mash_Extract_Weight + Water_Weight​
4. Calculate the volume of the wort using:
   Mash_Wort_Volume = Mash_Wort_Weight / (8.3304 lb/gal * SG)​
5. Finally, calculate lauter efficiency using:
   Lauter_Efficiency = Pre-Boil_Volume [corrected to 68˚F/20˚C] / Mash_Wort_Volume​

This method only works for a no-sparge process. For a sparge process you have to use Lauter_Eff = Pre-Boil_Extract_Weight / Mash_Extract_Weight.


Brew on

 

[stever1000]

Where did you read that acid malt has no extract potential? The database in BeerSmith lists a potential between 1.027 and 1.036, depending on supplier.

If I include the acid malt, I get your mash efficiency at 78%

I thought I read somewhere on Google that due to the way the acid malt is made the sugars are consumed in the process...but searching again I can't find the same page

I will use 1.027 as a starting point for the acid malt

 

[stever1000]

Sorry for the delayed response, but I have had a terrible time trying to reply. I lost one draft due to user error :smack: , and two more drafts because HBT refused to accept the post submissions. Hopefully the fourth time will be the charm.

Yes, you are doing it wrong. The denominator in the lauter efficiency formula needs to be the volume of wort in the mash, not the strike volume (which is what your two terms add up to.) The wort volume is larger than the strike volume because of the volume of the dissolved extract (mostly sugar.)

The correct way to do the calculation:

1. Convert the mash wort SG to ˚Plato using the following formula:
   ˚Plato = -616.868 + 1111.14 * SG - 630.272 * SG^2 + 135.997 * SG^3
   ​
2. Calculate the weight of extract in the wort using:
   Mash_Extract_Weight = ˚Plato * Water_Weight / (100˚P - ˚Plato)
   Where: Water_Weight = Strike_Volume * 8.3304 lb/gal​
3. Calculate the weight of the wort in the mash using:
   Mash_Wort_Weight = Mash_Extract_Weight + Water_Weight​
4. Calculate the volume of the wort using:
   Mash_Wort_Volume = Mash_Wort_Weight / (8.3304 lb/gal * SG)​
5. Finally, calculate lauter efficiency using:
   Lauter_Efficiency = Pre-Boil_Volume [corrected to 68˚F/20˚C] / Mash_Wort_Volume​

This method only works for a no-sparge process. For a sparge process you have to use Lauter_Eff = Pre-Boil_Extract_Weight / Mash_Extract_Weight.


Brew on

Using this I get approx 80.5% lauter efficiency. This makes sense since I'm not sparging...and would increase if I sparged?

 

[stever1000]

If I include the acid malt, I get your mash efficiency at 78%

Sorry for quoting you so many times...

I'm using vlookup in excel to lookup the extract potential of each grain, so when I add acid malt as 1.027 I get 79.9% and when I used an average of 37 for each grain, I get 78%

I'm quite happy with this new result
Thanks for the help!!

 

[doug293cz]

Using this I get approx 80.5% lauter efficiency. This makes sense since I'm not sparging...and would increase if I sparged?

Yes, a sparge will increase your lauter efficiency. Typically a single batch sparge with equal first runnings and sparge runnings volumes will provide about 8 percentage points increase in lauter efficiency vs. no-sparge (that's one of the things the chart in this post tells you.) A double batch sparge (equal runnings) will provide about an 11 percentage point increase over no-sparge, and an expertly conducted fly sparge can do even better. A simple "pour the sparge water over the suspended bag" is likely to get less of an improvement than a single batch sparge, but still significant. It's all about rinsing more sugars from the grain mass.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

Sorry for quoting you so many times...

I'm using vlookup in excel to lookup the extract potential of each grain, so when I add acid malt as 1.027 I get 79.9% and when I used an average of 37 for each grain, I get 78%

I'm quite happy with this new result
Thanks for the help!!

Yeah, I just use 37 for everything. Within the accuracy of all the other measurements, it doesn't add significant error. Kai Troester (Braukaiser) does pretty much the same thing. Given the uncertainty in all of the measurements, the accuracy of the calculated efficiencies is on the order of +/- 3%. But, tweaking the inputs to calculations gives you insight into how the variables affect the outcome, so it's a useful exercise.

Glad to be of service. Helping brewers understand efficiency is one of the things I contribute to HBT. I do it because it's interesting to me, and helps keep my mind sharp, now that I am retired.

Brew on

 

[stever1000]

Yes, a sparge will increase your lauter efficiency. Typically a single batch sparge with equal first runnings and sparge runnings volumes will provide about 8 percentage points increase in lauter efficiency vs. no-sparge (that's one of the things the chart in this post tells you.) A double batch sparge (equal runnings) will provide about an 11 percentage point increase over no-sparge, and an expertly conducted fly sparge can do even better. A simple "pour the sparge water over the suspended bag" is likely to get less of an improvement than a single batch sparge, but still significant. It's all about rinsing more sugars from the grain mass.

Brew on

Thanks! I will definitely look into how to do those types of sparges with BIAB

 

[stever1000]

Now I wonder if the jump in conversion and mash efficiency in this batch over my last 6 batches has to do more with crush or mash pH

The addition of 4oz acid malt would lower the pH - but not within the optimum range in Bru'N water and easy water calculator, with an estimated pH of 5.58 and 5.65, respectively... however, all the brewers in my area have said they do NOT have problems with pH and never need to add anything

Reducing my crush from 0.039" to 0.035" definitely helped as well, and I am not too sure how close to 0.039" the crusher was the last 4/6 batches since I only checked in the beginning....

I guess my next batch will leave out the acid malt, and keep the same crush to see what the results are

 

[snowtires]

I'm having efficiency issues as well with an ebiab system. I am working it out one thing at a time. It's down to crush and old grains and now. I will know exactly what it is in 1 or 2 Brew days. But it is nice to try one thing at a time then you know what it was.