[dilluh98]

That would be awesome. While I feel like the difference would likely be detectable, I'm not sure it would be drastic.

[denny]

What I'd really love to see is a BIAB, short boil, short mash, shake to oxygenate batch up against a traditional fly-sparge 3-tiered system with pure 02.

But talk about a lot of variables.

To what end?

[dilluh98]

What I'd really love to see is a BIAB, short boil, short mash, shake to oxygenate batch up against a traditional fly-sparge 3-tiered system with pure 02.

But talk about a lot of variables.

To what end?

Not so much as an experiment since that's a lot of changing variables but just for fun? Just to see?

[a10t2]

I think open kettle and vigorous boil are the key elements here.

This is the crucial variable (and I skimmed the thread, so apologies if someone already mentioned it). Even the short boil reaches ~8% evaporation volume, which is generally quoted as the minimum for DMS reduction.

[BrodyR]

What I'd really love to see is a BIAB, short boil, short mash, shake to oxygenate batch up against a traditional fly-sparge 3-tiered system with pure 02.

But talk about a lot of variables.

To what end?

To see if you make significantly better beer or not.

It seems like a lot of these exbeeriments have shown that people haven't really been able to detect much difference in the individual variables (O2, short boil, short mash) but I wonder if, all put together, that would change. And I also wonder if all things equal BIAB produces the same quality beer as Batch/Fly sparging.

[BrodyR]

And (not to go too far off topic) because I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about how to simplify and improve my processes.

Currently I mash in a cooler using (using a bag to lauter), batch sparge. I then run the wort through a filter built into my funnel to remove all the grain particles that slipped through the bag. I've been doing this based on the notion that grain particles in the boil = bad beer. But I'm wondering if I could avoid that all together - stop batch sparging and stop filtering the wort. If I combine that with a slightly shorter boil and or mash (maybe 45m each) I'd be able to brew more days.

The other big thing on my mind is chilling. I'm a renter and the hose hookup in my backyard is ancient and rusting away so the only way I use my immersion chiller is through gravity pouring from a bucket. It takes a lot longer so I think I may add a chill wand into the equation and double team it... Chill wand + immersion chiller in the wort, whirlpooling, and adding some ice to the water that's moving through the chiller should get the job done quick.

[Joe Sr.]

What I'd really love to see is a BIAB, short boil, short mash, shake to oxygenate batch up against a traditional fly-sparge 3-tiered system with pure 02.

But talk about a lot of variables.

To what end?

To see if you make significantly better beer or not.

It seems like a lot of these exbeeriments have shown that people haven't really been able to detect much difference in the individual variables (O2, short boil, short mash) but I wonder if, all put together, that would change. And I also wonder if all things equal BIAB produces the same quality beer as Batch/Fly sparging.

To me, it's pretty well established that yes you can make excellent beer with BIAB.  Just as you can with fly sparging, batch sparging, or even going with all extract.  Whether or not you DO make excellent beer is brewer dependent.

The exbeeriments have value, to me, in that they aren't comparing wholly different systems on a qualitative basis, but rather taking the same wort and changing one variable in how it's handled.  Any perceptible differences should be easily attributable to that single variable.

[4swan]

I think open kettle and vigorous boil are the key elements here.

This is the crucial variable (and I skimmed the thread, so apologies if someone already mentioned it). Even the short boil reaches ~8% evaporation volume, which is generally quoted as the minimum for DMS reduction.

This might be one of the reasons I've never had DMS problems even though I mostly cover my brewpot.  I typically evaporate 3/4 to 1 gallon of volume with a 60 minute boil, which is 12-15%.  (starting volume 6.25-6.5 ending volume 5.5 gallons.)

[denny]

What I'd really love to see is a BIAB, short boil, short mash, shake to oxygenate batch up against a traditional fly-sparge 3-tiered system with pure 02.

But talk about a lot of variables.

To what end?

To see if you make significantly better beer or not.

It seems like a lot of these exbeeriments have shown that people haven't really been able to detect much difference in the individual variables (O2, short boil, short mash) but I wonder if, all put together, that would change. And I also wonder if all things equal BIAB produces the same quality beer as Batch/Fly sparging.

To me, it's pretty well established that yes you can make excellent beer with BIAB.  Just as you can with fly sparging, batch sparging, or even going with all extract.  Whether or not you DO make excellent beer is brewer dependent.

The exbeeriments have value, to me, in that they aren't comparing wholly different systems on a qualitative basis, but rather taking the same wort and changing one variable in how it's handled.  Any perceptible differences should be easily attributable to that single variable.

Well said, Joe.  That's just what I was getting at.

[Joe Sr.]

You make me blush...

[brulosopher]

You make me blush...

He just types slower than you

[denny]

You make me blush...

He just types slower than you

well, yeah, that too...

[suprchunk]

Strange I just now came upon this post. The same thing was concluded back in 2006/7 on BBR. Just going through the backlog I have of them now. Weird that we are continuing to test stuff that has already had empirical evidence suggest the same thing.

[denny]

Strange I just now came upon this post. The same thing was concluded back in 2006/7 on BBR. Just going through the backlog I have of them now. Weird that we are continuing to test stuff that has already had empirical evidence suggest the same thing.

It's called "citizen science".  When you have less than rigorous testing, the more data points the better.

[tommymorris]

Strange I just now came upon this post. The same thing was concluded back in 2006/7 on BBR. Just going through the backlog I have of them now. Weird that we are continuing to test stuff that has already had empirical evidence suggest the same thing.

It's called "citizen science".  When you have less than rigorous testing, the more data points the better.

+1

Also, the scientific method requires experiments to be repeated by multiple independent experimenters before the results can be accepted.