[Wort-H.O.G.]

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you'd boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn't work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

Perhaps Denny means that a 10 gallon batch would require boiling off twice as much liquid as a 5 gallon batch, which is unlikely. In other words, if 10% is 1 gal/hr at 5 gallons then you would be required to boil off 2 gal/hr at 10 gallons, and 3 gal/hr at 15 gallons to maintain that "10% boiloff rate".

I agree that boiloff rate as percentage is a poor way of describing that particular loss. Volume per hour is much better, IMO.

Understood and agreed as I mentioned.
I know what volume and % I boil off for the batches I make, irrespective of it being 7,8,9,10 pre boil gallons. Each is a known % and known volume of boil off.

I'm just curious on the statement that greater than 10% boil off ( understanding that is relative to volumes) can result in greater concentrations of minerals than you may want or target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[denny]

Using % for boiloff is a bad way to go.  That would mean you'd boil off twice as much for a 10 gal. batch as a 5, and at least for me, it doesn't work that way.

not sure I follow Denny. If you boil off 13% for 5 gal, but say 10% for 10gal or 8% for 20gal, it would be relative to your batch size and % chosen, not necessarily double or triple that of a 5 gal boil off %.

or are you saying something different?

Perhaps Denny means that a 10 gallon batch would require boiling off twice as much liquid as a 5 gallon batch, which is unlikely. In other words, if 10% is 1 gal/hr at 5 gallons then you would be required to boil off 2 gal/hr at 10 gallons, and 3 gal/hr at 15 gallons to maintain that "10% boiloff rate".

I agree that boiloff rate as percentage is a poor way of describing that particular loss. Volume per hour is much better, IMO.

Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at.

[Stevie]

^^^ this is why I omit the boil off from my sparge volume. This allows me to accommodate different batch sizes and have a fairly consistent mineral profile.

[mabrungard]

Those boil off percentages were in terms of total loss. Don't get that confused with percent loss per hour, which is a rate.

While the rate is important in figuring out the total loss, rate is almost meaningless with respect to the concentration effect on the ionic content. Loss Rate x Time = Total Loss. Loss Rate can be expressed as a percentage, but as Denny points out, that can get you into trouble when the batch size differs.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

Those boil off percentages were in terms of total loss. Don't get that confused with percent loss per hour, which is a rate.

While the rate is important in figuring out the total loss, rate is almost meaningless with respect to the concentration effect on the ionic content. Loss Rate x Time = Total Loss. Loss Rate can be expressed as a percentage, but as Denny points out, that can get you into trouble when the batch size differs.

so is there concern with 5 gal batches if over xx% or xx volume (fill in for me)? do you recommend as Steve said, removing boil volume lost from sparge water to get optimal mineral content?

[HoosierBrew]

so is there concern with 5 gal batches if over xx% or xx volume (fill in for me)? do you recommend as Steve said, removing boil volume lost from sparge water to get optimal mineral content?

I wonder that, too. At least what Steve does takes into account the volume lost to boil off. With the variability of boil off rates to various factors (burner setting, wind, humidity,etc.), I wish the mineral concentration could be shown directly tied to a given volume of post boil wort, independent of boil off rate. As I posted earlier, I hit the same volume pretty accurately for most every batch, so I'm most interested in the concentration in my 5.5 gallons.

[mabrungard]

I'm not quite sure if there is an ideal or proper way to account for the effect of over-concentration, but the approach Steve mentions should be as good as any.

[Stevie]

I am "The Steve"

Sorry.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

I am "The Steve"

Sorry.

you are dude!   "The Don" Donald Trump has nothing on you.

[HoosierBrew]

Yeah, kinda like 'The Ohio State University'. Sorry Ken, not a Buckeye fan.   

[Wort-H.O.G.]

Yeah, kinda like 'The Ohio State University'. Sorry Ken, not a Buckeye fan.   

No offense taken. I'm a transplant Ohioan....lived most of my life somewhere else and born in NY!

[Stevie]

Yeah, kinda like 'The Ohio State University'. Sorry Ken, not a Buckeye fan.   

Drives my wife nuts when football players do that. The one that really gets her is "The U"

[HoosierBrew]

Yeah, kinda like 'The Ohio State University'. Sorry Ken, not a Buckeye fan.   

Drives my wife nuts when football players do that. The one that really gets her is "The U"

Hell, drives me nuts, too. Really annoying. Right up there with being on MNF and announcing what high school you went to instead of your college. Too cool.

[ynotbrusum]

I agree with Denny - same system, same rate - if you boil off a gallon per hour with your system, you will boil off the same amount per time period regardless if your volume is bigger or smaller.

[cempt1]

Reviving this thread. I am brewing Denny's Wry Smile Rye IPA.
I am planning on using the pale ale profile but reducing the bru'nwater sparge volume by my boil off  (1 gal).  To hit this profile, building on RO water,  I am adding gypsum, calcium chloride, Epsom salt, baking soda and a tiny bit of chalk.  That is a lot more additions than I have used before.  Does that sound right?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk