[maxieboy]

I will even put a pitcher under the spigot after I've drained most of the wort out, and continue to catch that last cup or two during the preboil.

I do the same

Me three.

[bo]

I will even put a pitcher under the spigot after I've drained most of the wort out, and continue to catch that last cup or two during the preboil.

I do the same

Me three.

Me four.

[bluesman]

The first runnings is the ever so sacred of sweet wort. It is like the first pressing of olives or the first wave of tomatoes from the vine. It is virgin wort that is second to none. I collect every last bit of it. 

[tygo]

The first runnings is the ever so sacred of sweet wort. It is like the first pressing of olives or the first wave of tomatoes from the vine. It is virgin wort that is second to none. I collect every last bit of it. 

Very poetic bluesman 

[bluesman]

The first runnings is the ever so sacred of sweet wort. It is like the first pressing of olives or the first wave of tomatoes from the vine. It is virgin wort that is second to none. I collect every last bit of it. 

Very poetic bluesman 

Thanks!

I try. 

[MDixon]

I've never been able to understand why anyone would batch or no sparge in a manner that would not allow the tun to be drained 100%. Other than that with batch and no, there is no dependency on any geometry or layout.

So to tie it all in a nice little ball - crush very fine, be sure you convert the mash, drain the tun completely and the resultant beer should achieve a 75% efficiency if the mash has converted fully. Also based on the posts it appears that should hold true up to a 1.075 OG brew.

A lot of tun designs simply can't drain completely.  You need a dip tube and an outflow hose that drops below the bottom of the tun enough to create a siphon, unless your outflow allows you to get all the liquid by tipping, which many don't.

You can calculate the expected efficiency of a no-sparge using Kai's batch sparge calculator. The prediction is for ~75% in the neighborhood of 1.050. It will drop in a predictable fashion below that.  You won't get that at 1.075, unless you start to have less than 0.12gal absorption, by essentially starting to wring the grain, like in a professional mash pad system.

So somebody's not telling the full story. a - said he was getting 69% at a 1.075 brew. Since I'm feeling lazy and not wanting to put much extra brain power to it, what's the prediction on a 1.075 brew?

On another note, I've never fashioned a tun which couldn't drain fully, never made sense to me. On a batch or no sparge I've always thought a cone would be the perfect shape for draining so long as the tun drained prior to compaction of the grain to the point the flow stopped.

[bluesman]

On a batch or no sparge I've always thought a cone would be the perfect shape for draining so long as the tun drained prior to compaction of the grain to the point the flow stopped.

For lautering efficiency purposes, this is a sound concept. Plus it would allow a nice filter bed.  

[morticaixavier]

If the whole tun were conical it would, I think reduce the chances of compaction as some of the weight would be transfered to the sloping side of the tun. interesting idea!

[a10t2]

So somebody's not telling the full story. a - said he was getting 69% at a 1.075 brew. Since I'm feeling lazy and not wanting to put much extra brain power to it, what's the prediction on a 1.075 brew?

The only variable is the pre-boil volume. At 5.5 gal, it'll be ~66% efficiency. At 7.5 gal, it's ~76%. Since you aren't compounding it with a second batch, the range is really pretty small.

[MDixon]

So somebody's not telling the full story. a - said he was getting 69% at a 1.075 brew. Since I'm feeling lazy and not wanting to put much extra brain power to it, what's the prediction on a 1.075 brew?

The only variable is the pre-boil volume. At 5.5 gal, it'll be ~66% efficiency. At 7.5 gal, it's ~76%. Since you aren't compounding it with a second batch, the range is really pretty small.

Just still not following, why would a 5.5 gallon batch of 1.075 have a 66% efficiency and a 7.5 gallon batch a 76% efficiency. Are you assuming using the same amount of grist or something and just adding more and more water?

Maybe I should have asked how long you cool cats boil...I mean we could add enough sparge water to turn it into a massive volume and extract nearly all the sugars and while that could be ran off in record time it would take forever to boil down to a manageable amount.

Somebody help me wrap my brain around all the stats for a 1.075 - 5 gallon finished batch size on a NO-SPARGE (meaning only drain the tun) which would have a 75% efficiency.
Grist is easy since I dictated 75% efficiency, ~13.9 lbs
Water absorption, let's assume 0.12 gal/lb = 1.67 gallons
Additional water
Total water (1.67 + additional water)
Final volume after runoff (should equal additional water and the difference between that and 5 gallon will determine the boil time using whomever's system boil off rate)
Mash time (I keep seeing 90 min popping up)

Anything else pertinent I left out?

[bluesman]

Here's a back of the envelope calculation

75% efficiency
Pre-boil gravity=1.075
75/.75=100 total GU's
36ppg*X(lbs of grist)/7.35gal=100GU
X=100GU*7.35gal/36ppg
Pre-boil volume=6.5gal (lautered)
strike water needed =7.35gal
total grist=20.4lbs
mash ratio(qt/lb)=1.44:1

This doesn't account for mash tun dead space.
.12lb/gal grain absorption is assumed.

[tom]

So somebody's not telling the full story. a - said he was getting 69% at a 1.075 brew. Since I'm feeling lazy and not wanting to put much extra brain power to it, what's the prediction on a 1.075 brew?

The only variable is the pre-boil volume. At 5.5 gal, it'll be ~66% efficiency. At 7.5 gal, it's ~76%. Since you aren't compounding it with a second batch, the range is really pretty small.

Just still not following, why would a 5.5 gallon batch of 1.075 have a 66% efficiency and a 7.5 gallon batch a 76% efficiency. Are you assuming using the same amount of grist or something and just adding more and more water?

Somebody help me wrap my brain around all the stats for a 1.075 - 5 gallon finished batch size on a NO-SPARGE (meaning only drain the tun) which would have a 75% efficiency.
Grist is easy since I dictated 75% efficiency, ~13.9 lbs
Water absorption, let's assume 0.12 gal/lb = 1.67 gallons
Additional water
Total water (1.67 + additional water)
Final volume after runoff (should equal additional water and the difference between that and 5 gallon will determine the boil time using whomever's system boil off rate)
Mash time (I keep seeing 90 min popping up)

Anything else pertinent I left out?

The extra water absorbs more sugars.

[tubercle]

Can't we all just boil longer

[tygo]

Can't we all just boil longer

Amen Tubercle.  Bump that efficiency right up. 

[malzig]

I ran some numbers through Kai's Batch Sparge Simulator, which is a great resource for understanding these things. 

A 1.050 No-Sparge batch:
10# of grain (with 100% conversion)
7.7 gallons mash water
6.5 gallons recovered (assuming no dead volume)
Boiled down to 5.5 gallons
78.7% efficiency.

95% conversion gives a prediction of 75% efficiency and 90% conversion would yield 71% efficiency.

Ignoring dead space, conversion would need to drop down to 75% to hit 60% efficiency and 62% to only get 50% efficiency.  So, for an average gravity beer, the 50-60% efficiency that often get thrown around for No-Sparge would be dependent on limited starch conversion.  If that same 60% efficiency batch was sparged to 70-75% efficiency, it would be at great risk of being over-sparged.

Using the assumptions in the first example, a 1.075 beer would require 17# of grain and 8.5 gallons to yield 6.5 gallons in the kettle and 5.5 gallons after the boil.  In that case, maximum efficiency would be 68%.