Author Topic: OG - Way High  (Read 2377 times)

Offline RC

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 670
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2021, 05:37:11 pm »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about that because I have never used or heard of a homebrew lauter "system" that is so imperfect that batch sparging actually becomes the more efficient method. Just curious, what type(s) of lauter system at the homebrew level is this inefficient?

FTR, I use coolers with either the standard round false bottom or a bazooka, depending on batch size, which dictates which cooler I use.
One that has channels that pass sparge water through the grain bed without properly rinsing (one that doesn’t pass over all of the grain surfaces continuously). Batch sparge thoroughly rinses the grains because you pour the warm water in, stir, let it sit a few minutes so the sugars dissolve into solution, and then drain. That’s a very effective process to collect sugars.

I really don't think channeling at the homebrew level due to lauter tun "design" is a thing. (Although I do know channeling well from my pro experience, where I did deal with a flawed lauter tun.) I think that channeling is one of those "facts" we homebrewers need to worry about that has filtered down (pun intended!) from the pro world because, well, if they worry about it, we must too.

At the homebrew level, channeling has happened to me when there is teig buildup due to the mash schedule. But that has nothing to do with my cooler "design" and is easily managed.

Batch sparging is actually quite inefficient at getting sugars out of the saturated kernel mass, compared to fly sparging. As soon as the sugar-concentration differential is zero, no more sugars are extracted, and this leaves a lot behind. But yeah it's easier and less time-consuming, for sure.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 25882
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #46 on: September 17, 2021, 08:42:54 am »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about that because I have never used or heard of a homebrew lauter "system" that is so imperfect that batch sparging actually becomes the more efficient method. Just curious, what type(s) of lauter system at the homebrew level is this inefficient?

FTR, I use coolers with either the standard round false bottom or a bazooka, depending on batch size, which dictates which cooler I use.

False bottoms are particularly prone to channeling as are poorly designed manifolds.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 25882
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #47 on: September 17, 2021, 08:44:54 am »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about that because I have never used or heard of a homebrew lauter "system" that is so imperfect that batch sparging actually becomes the more efficient method. Just curious, what type(s) of lauter system at the homebrew level is this inefficient?

FTR, I use coolers with either the standard round false bottom or a bazooka, depending on batch size, which dictates which cooler I use.
One that has channels that pass sparge water through the grain bed without properly rinsing (one that doesn’t pass over all of the grain surfaces continuously). Batch sparge thoroughly rinses the grains because you pour the warm water in, stir, let it sit a few minutes so the sugars dissolve into solution, and then drain. That’s a very effective process to collect sugars.

I really don't think channeling at the homebrew level due to lauter tun "design" is a thing. (Although I do know channeling well from my pro experience, where I did deal with a flawed lauter tun.) I think that channeling is one of those "facts" we homebrewers need to worry about that has filtered down (pun intended!) from the pro world because, well, if they worry about it, we must too.

At the homebrew level, channeling has happened to me when there is teig buildup due to the mash schedule. But that has nothing to do with my cooler "design" and is easily managed.

Batch sparging is actually quite inefficient at getting sugars out of the saturated kernel mass, compared to fly sparging. As soon as the sugar-concentration differential is zero, no more sugars are extracted, and this leaves a lot behind. But yeah it's easier and less time-consuming, for sure.

Channelling at the homebrew level is definitely an issue.  If you haven't seen it happen, you've been lucky.  Look, fly vs. batch sparge is SO 25 years ago.  Just do whatever you like, but its been well proven by experience that batch sparging can be as efficient as fly sparging, if not more so.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline RC

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 670
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2021, 09:14:52 am »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought about that because I have never used or heard of a homebrew lauter "system" that is so imperfect that batch sparging actually becomes the more efficient method. Just curious, what type(s) of lauter system at the homebrew level is this inefficient?

FTR, I use coolers with either the standard round false bottom or a bazooka, depending on batch size, which dictates which cooler I use.
One that has channels that pass sparge water through the grain bed without properly rinsing (one that doesn’t pass over all of the grain surfaces continuously). Batch sparge thoroughly rinses the grains because you pour the warm water in, stir, let it sit a few minutes so the sugars dissolve into solution, and then drain. That’s a very effective process to collect sugars.

I really don't think channeling at the homebrew level due to lauter tun "design" is a thing. (Although I do know channeling well from my pro experience, where I did deal with a flawed lauter tun.) I think that channeling is one of those "facts" we homebrewers need to worry about that has filtered down (pun intended!) from the pro world because, well, if they worry about it, we must too.

At the homebrew level, channeling has happened to me when there is teig buildup due to the mash schedule. But that has nothing to do with my cooler "design" and is easily managed.

Batch sparging is actually quite inefficient at getting sugars out of the saturated kernel mass, compared to fly sparging. As soon as the sugar-concentration differential is zero, no more sugars are extracted, and this leaves a lot behind. But yeah it's easier and less time-consuming, for sure.

Just do whatever you like.

This is what I always do, thanks.

Offline Bel Air Brewing

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1374
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2021, 10:17:27 am »
Here is what works very nicely for us...
Using upper falsies for the even distribution of the HLT from the gravity feed runoff hose.
Note the SS mesh on the bottom. This filters out a large amount of crud.






Winning Gold Medals isn't everything, but it sure is fun!

Offline fredthecat

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1411
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2021, 10:30:50 am »
so i have to note for all the people who are adamantly pro-fly sparging.

why? this "efficiency" number?

i just find that interesting in that earlier, i asked if people here keep track of costs and attempt to minimize costs in brews.

the answer to that was a generally vehement "no, not at all. i have never considered costs"

then why would you care about a 10% potential boost in efficiency? i always consider how to minimize cost while maintaing quality and i don't care about spending 2 to 4 dollars more on grain per brew for my current mediocre efficiency.


Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 25882
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2021, 10:47:30 am »
so i have to note for all the people who are adamantly pro-fly sparging.

why? this "efficiency" number?

i just find that interesting in that earlier, i asked if people here keep track of costs and attempt to minimize costs in brews.

the answer to that was a generally vehement "no, not at all. i have never considered costs"

then why would you care about a 10% potential boost in efficiency? i always consider how to minimize cost while maintaing quality and i don't care about spending 2 to 4 dollars more on grain per brew for my current mediocre efficiency.

For some people (not necessarily anyone in this discussion) it's a matter of "mine is bigger than yours".  I track it so I know how to build recipes.  I'm more concerned with consistency rather than a high number.  I think that's true of many people.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Offline HighVoltageMan!

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #52 on: September 17, 2021, 11:53:10 am »
so i have to note for all the people who are adamantly pro-fly sparging.

why? this "efficiency" number?

i just find that interesting in that earlier, i asked if people here keep track of costs and attempt to minimize costs in brews.

the answer to that was a generally vehement "no, not at all. i have never considered costs"

then why would you care about a 10% potential boost in efficiency? i always consider how to minimize cost while maintaing quality and i don't care about spending 2 to 4 dollars more on grain per brew for my current mediocre efficiency.

For some people (not necessarily anyone in this discussion) it's a matter of "mine is bigger than yours".  I track it so I know how to build recipes.  I'm more concerned with consistency rather than a high number.  I think that's true of many people.

It is also a way of determining how well your system is working. If you nail the proper pH, lauter and sparge without channels and if your system is working correctly than you should start seeing consistent numbers batch to batch. There are ways of squeezing more out of a system, but some may max out at 60%, while others will hit in the low 90's. It depends on your system, but a 90% beer isn't necessarily better then the 60%. Some systems may be less efficient than others but still produce a great beer.

Offline Bel Air Brewing

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1374
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #53 on: September 17, 2021, 03:21:24 pm »
The whole thing that started this thread was the 1.071 OG. That reading was not expected at all, and thought to be an error on my part.
Now I have learned that my system is more efficient than we had previously thought.
Before the recipes were based on 70% efficiency. Now it will be bumped up to 85% for the next couple brews, and see how it comes out.
Winning Gold Medals isn't everything, but it sure is fun!

Offline ynotbrusum

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 4540
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2021, 07:12:50 am »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

I suppose if you run enough water through the fly sparging approach, you are bound to extract a greater amount of sugars eventually, but then again, it may have the potential to create a less than ideal pH and also increase necessary boil time to get to intended finished wort volume levels post-boil.  I never really liked fly sparging, because of the extra water needed to maintain a level of water above the grain bed (I used RO and didn't like to use unnecessary extra amounts for a batch - it seemed like such a waste - but I suppose for those able to use tap water straight away or tap water only modestly treated, the wasted water isn't an issue).  Batch sparging just seemed easier - adding the second amount based on volume runoff of the first runnings to get to a set pre-boil volume became second nature to me.  But as always - YMMV.  Cheers.

The same volume of water is used for both methods. Fly sparging does not use more water than batch sparging.

Not the way I have seen fly sparging - it typically uses water keeping a level above the grain bed and stopping collection at a point where one has a predetermined preboil volume of wort (at which point adding large water and collecting wort stops.  With batch sparging,one runs all of the wort off in a first running and adds a second addition of the difference between first running volume and the intended preboil volume.  That results in less water used, because with fly sparging, the collection stopping point happens with the excess water remaining on top of the grain bed.  At least that is what I have experienced.
Hodge Garage Brewing: "Brew with a glad heart!"

Offline RC

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 670
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2021, 10:41:29 am »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

I suppose if you run enough water through the fly sparging approach, you are bound to extract a greater amount of sugars eventually, but then again, it may have the potential to create a less than ideal pH and also increase necessary boil time to get to intended finished wort volume levels post-boil.  I never really liked fly sparging, because of the extra water needed to maintain a level of water above the grain bed (I used RO and didn't like to use unnecessary extra amounts for a batch - it seemed like such a waste - but I suppose for those able to use tap water straight away or tap water only modestly treated, the wasted water isn't an issue).  Batch sparging just seemed easier - adding the second amount based on volume runoff of the first runnings to get to a set pre-boil volume became second nature to me.  But as always - YMMV.  Cheers.

The same volume of water is used for both methods. Fly sparging does not use more water than batch sparging.

Not the way I have seen fly sparging - it typically uses water keeping a level above the grain bed and stopping collection at a point where one has a predetermined preboil volume of wort (at which point adding large water and collecting wort stops.  With batch sparging,one runs all of the wort off in a first running and adds a second addition of the difference between first running volume and the intended preboil volume.  That results in less water used, because with fly sparging, the collection stopping point happens with the excess water remaining on top of the grain bed.  At least that is what I have experienced.

This is not how I have ever done fly sparging or ever seen it done. If I need six gallons of sparge water to achieve my pre-boil volume, then I can either add all six gallons in one fell swoop (i.e. batch sparge) or trickle it in from the top (i.e. fly sparge). With the latter, once the last of the six gallons have trickled in at the top, I just let it run through the grain bed until the bed is dry and all that sparge water has been collected. Either way, I'm using six gallons of sparge water. I agree it would be wasteful, even silly, to use more water than needed for fly sparging, especially if you use RO water. This strikes me as kind of self-evident, though.

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 25882
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • Dennybrew
Re: OG - Way High
« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2021, 11:49:51 am »
Forgot to mention, the mash is fly sparged.  I guess that impacts efficiency?

Yes, but it's hard to say whether it would make it higher or lower.  When I was using my batch sparge cooler system, my efficiency was often higher than those who fly sparged.  There are a number of variables involved.

It is certainly possible to have higher efficiency with batch sparging than with fly sparging if you have a finer crush than the fly sparger. All else being equal, though (e.g. same crush), fly sparging will always extract more sugar than batch sparging.

No, that's not the case.  A less than perfect lauter system will reduce fly sparging efficiency.  And I know few people who have a perfect lauter system.  Batch sparging eliminates that from the equation.

I suppose if you run enough water through the fly sparging approach, you are bound to extract a greater amount of sugars eventually, but then again, it may have the potential to create a less than ideal pH and also increase necessary boil time to get to intended finished wort volume levels post-boil.  I never really liked fly sparging, because of the extra water needed to maintain a level of water above the grain bed (I used RO and didn't like to use unnecessary extra amounts for a batch - it seemed like such a waste - but I suppose for those able to use tap water straight away or tap water only modestly treated, the wasted water isn't an issue).  Batch sparging just seemed easier - adding the second amount based on volume runoff of the first runnings to get to a set pre-boil volume became second nature to me.  But as always - YMMV.  Cheers.

The same volume of water is used for both methods. Fly sparging does not use more water than batch sparging.

Not the way I have seen fly sparging - it typically uses water keeping a level above the grain bed and stopping collection at a point where one has a predetermined preboil volume of wort (at which point adding large water and collecting wort stops.  With batch sparging,one runs all of the wort off in a first running and adds a second addition of the difference between first running volume and the intended preboil volume.  That results in less water used, because with fly sparging, the collection stopping point happens with the excess water remaining on top of the grain bed.  At least that is what I have experienced.

This is not how I have ever done fly sparging or ever seen it done. If I need six gallons of sparge water to achieve my pre-boil volume, then I can either add all six gallons in one fell swoop (i.e. batch sparge) or trickle it in from the top (i.e. fly sparge). With the latter, once the last of the six gallons have trickled in at the top, I just let it run through the grain bed until the bed is dry and all that sparge water has been collected. Either way, I'm using six gallons of sparge water. I agree it would be wasteful, even silly, to use more water than needed for fly sparging, especially if you use RO water. This strikes me as kind of self-evident, though.
[/quote

The way you are fly sparging is atypical.  It's obviously not wrong, but it is different from the eay fly sparging is usually described and done.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell