| |
Main
Date: 25 Oct 2006 18:37:28
From: JS
Subject: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
I brewed an Imperial IPA today. 17#s grain. Beertools said I should
have had an OG of 1.082. Now perhaps I crushed too coarse, but I
ended up at the point I intended to begin chilling with about 1.067.
I let it boil down further to 1.072, as I didn't want this to go on
all day. A little short of the guidlines, tho.
What gets me is that at the point where I had collected all the wort I
intended to boil, the SG of the runnings were still in the 1.030s
range, meaning I still had plenty of sugars to extract form the
grains, but no more room in my kettle.
My procedure digressed from my normal batch sparge routine. I saw
that after figuring the water retained, that I would only need about a
pint to collect half the boil vol. with the first rinsing. I
therefore decided to add enough hot water to collect 2/3 the volume,
then fly sparge with the necessary water to achieve target vol.
I can see several ways to address this: a) crush finer and/or use
more grain. b) collect more runnings, using an auxiliary pot to boil
separately whatever my 30qt one won't accomodate. c) add some DME to
bring the SG up to target level.
Or would I have been better off using a textbook batch sparge? The
problem I have with batch sparging large grain bills is that I don't
get the temp up to the 165-168 range for proper sparging if all I need
for half the target vol. is to add a quart or less of boiling water.
You don't get from the low 150s to the mid or high 160s with a quart
of boiling water. This is an issue I've never seen discussed here, as
many times as I've seen posts on batch sparging.
Looking forward to opinions freely expressed. Thanks.
John S.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 23:32:22
From:
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
JS <jayceeessfouratfrontiernetdotnet > wrote:
: I brewed an Imperial IPA today. 17#s grain. Beertools said I should
: have had an OG of 1.082. Now perhaps I crushed too coarse, but I
: ended up at the point I intended to begin chilling with about 1.067.
: I let it boil down further to 1.072, as I didn't want this to go on
: all day. A little short of the guidlines, tho.
: What gets me is that at the point where I had collected all the wort I
: intended to boil, the SG of the runnings were still in the 1.030s
: range, meaning I still had plenty of sugars to extract form the
: grains, but no more room in my kettle.
It's the nature of the beast trying to do a high gravity. The continuous sparge would help over that batch sparge, but
it just takes a lot of sparge water to get all the sugars out. If you don't or can't boil off a lot of the water, you're kinda
stuck.
One thing I suggested to my brother when he brewed a big barleywine a few weeks ago was to make a beer out of the
second runnings. That way you can use more grain, get a higher gravity for the first big beer, and have enough leftover to
make a light/normal beer. IIRC, he used about 27# and got 5 gallons of 1.130 OG barleywine wort, and 5.5 gallons of 1.040
"barleywind droppings" wort. Probably a total of 3-4 gallons boiled off betwen the two beers together.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 17:56:31
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Wed, 25 2006 18:37:28 -0400, < > wrote:
> I brewed an Imperial IPA today. 17#s grain. Beertools said I should
> have had an OG of 1.082. Now perhaps I crushed too coarse, but I
> ended up at the point I intended to begin chilling with about 1.067.
> I let it boil down further to 1.072, as I didn't want this to go on
> all day. A little short of the guidlines, tho.
>
> What gets me is that at the point where I had collected all the wort I
> intended to boil, the SG of the runnings were still in the 1.030s
> range, meaning I still had plenty of sugars to extract form the
> grains, but no more room in my kettle.
Yeah, this is normal. You are usually going to have a lower efficiency
on high gravity beers. The reason is exactly as you noted, with a lot
more grain in the mash, you really need to do a much bigger sparge. Most
brewers do not want to spend several hours boiling though, nor do they have
the kettle volume to collect twice their normal volume.
> I can see several ways to address this: a) crush finer and/or use
> more grain. b) collect more runnings, using an auxiliary pot to boil
> separately whatever my 30qt one won't accomodate. c) add some DME to
> bring the SG up to target level.
I think the standard approach is to just accept the lower efficiency and
use more grain to compensate. "Topping off" the OG with extract will work
too, although additional grain is probably cheaper than adding extract.
You could collect a lot more and boil it all down if you really wanted to,
but most people find this a lot more inconvenient and/or tedious.
> Or would I have been better off using a textbook batch sparge?
The sparge method doesn't really come into play. It wouldn't have really
mattered if you batch sparged or fly sparged, the main problem is that
in order to get all of the sugars out of a really large mash, you need
a really large sparge volume regardless of your sparge method.
Don't feel bad though, it's a common problem. You didn't do anything
wrong, everyone runs into this problem with big beers.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 22:10:23
From: JS
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On 26 2006 17:56:31 GMT, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net >
wrote:
>Don't feel bad though, it's a common problem. You didn't do anything
>wrong, everyone runs into this problem with big beers.
>
>
>John.
Thanks for the reasurrance! You always impress me with your hands-on
knowledge of the craft.
John S.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 14:38:59
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Thu, 26 2006 22:10:23 -0400, < > wrote:
> On 26 2006 17:56:31 GMT, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't feel bad though, it's a common problem. You didn't do anything
>>wrong, everyone runs into this problem with big beers.
>>
>>
>>John.
> Thanks for the reasurrance! You always impress me with your hands-on
> knowledge of the craft.
I've just been doing this for awhile. More experience, rather than
actual intelligence. ;)
John.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:36:26
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
JS wrote:
> Or would I have been better off using a textbook batch sparge? The
> problem I have with batch sparging large grain bills is that I don't
> get the temp up to the 165-168 range for proper sparging if all I need
> for half the target vol. is to add a quart or less of boiling water.
> You don't get from the low 150s to the mid or high 160s with a quart
> of boiling water. This is an issue I've never seen discussed here, as
> many times as I've seen posts on batch sparging.
>
> Looking forward to opinions freely expressed. Thanks.
The 165-168 temp is completely optional. I do it if I can and don't
sweat it when I can't. It makes very little difference to your
efficiency. I'm surprised you had such low efficiency on such a small
grist bill. I did a 1.091 beer on Sat., batch sparged, and got 85%
efficiency. I think you need to look at your crush....
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:42:24
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Mon, 30 2006 10:36:26 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> JS wrote:
>
>> Or would I have been better off using a textbook batch sparge? The
>> problem I have with batch sparging large grain bills is that I don't
>> get the temp up to the 165-168 range for proper sparging if all I need
>> for half the target vol. is to add a quart or less of boiling water.
>> You don't get from the low 150s to the mid or high 160s with a quart
>> of boiling water. This is an issue I've never seen discussed here, as
>> many times as I've seen posts on batch sparging.
>>
>> Looking forward to opinions freely expressed. Thanks.
>
> The 165-168 temp is completely optional. I do it if I can and don't
> sweat it when I can't. It makes very little difference to your
> efficiency. I'm surprised you had such low efficiency on such a small
> grist bill. I did a 1.091 beer on Sat., batch sparged, and got 85%
> efficiency. I think you need to look at your crush....
What was your pre-boil volume though? That's usually the key for getting
a good effeciency on a big beer like that. Most people don't have the
patience for a 4.5 hour boil. ;)
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 12:35:28
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> What was your pre-boil volume though? That's usually the key for getting
> a good effeciency on a big beer like that. Most people don't have the
> patience for a 4.5 hour boil. ;)
Preboil volume for that one was 11 gal., but my efficiency is the same
even when I start with my normal 7 gal.
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 22:37:58
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Mon, 30 2006 12:35:28 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> What was your pre-boil volume though? That's usually the key for getting
>> a good effeciency on a big beer like that. Most people don't have the
>> patience for a 4.5 hour boil. ;)
>
> Preboil volume for that one was 11 gal., but my efficiency is the same
> even when I start with my normal 7 gal.
I'm not sure I understand what you were saying. You did a 1.091 beer
collecting 7 gal in the kettle and still got the same efficiency as when
you did a 1.091 beer and collected 11 gal?
John.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:51:44
From: JS
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On 30 2006 22:37:58 GMT, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net >
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 2006 12:35:28 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote:
>> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>
>>> What was your pre-boil volume though? That's usually the key for getting
>>> a good effeciency on a big beer like that. Most people don't have the
>>> patience for a 4.5 hour boil. ;)
>>
>> Preboil volume for that one was 11 gal., but my efficiency is the same
>> even when I start with my normal 7 gal.
>
>I'm not sure I understand what you were saying. You did a 1.091 beer
>collecting 7 gal in the kettle and still got the same efficiency as when
>you did a 1.091 beer and collected 11 gal?
>
>
>John.
Let the OP chime in here. I don't understand either. After thinking
it over, I plan next time I do a large grain bill to collect a lot
more wort, and to facilitate boiling it down I would leave the lid off
for a good portion of the time. (I usually leave it partly on to
avoid excess evaporation, but perhaps there are circumstances where a
greater evap. rate would be useful.) I may even have to use an aux.
pot to boil some of the runnings until evaporation has created
sufficient room in my main one. Does this sound reasonable?
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:50:25
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Mon, 30 2006 20:51:44 -0500, < > wrote:
> Let the OP chime in here. I don't understand either.
I'm not sure I understand what Denny was saying either. I think we're
just talking about slightly different things, but I could be wrong.
> After thinking
> it over, I plan next time I do a large grain bill to collect a lot
> more wort, and to facilitate boiling it down I would leave the lid off
> for a good portion of the time. (I usually leave it partly on to
> avoid excess evaporation, but perhaps there are circumstances where a
> greater evap. rate would be useful.)
IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
> I may even have to use an aux.
> pot to boil some of the runnings until evaporation has created
> sufficient room in my main one. Does this sound reasonable?
That's one way to do it. IMO, it's a lot of extra work though. I think
a far easier way to address this issue is to just accept the lower
efficiency and use more grain to compensate. Then collect your normal
volume and do a normal boil, rather than collecting a lot more wort and
boiling for a really long time. Both options are equally valid though,
pick the one you like better. ;)
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:12:42
From: JS
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On 31 2006 15:50:25 GMT, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net >
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 2006 20:51:44 -0500, <> wrote:
>> Let the OP chime in here. I don't understand either.
>
>I'm not sure I understand what Denny was saying either. I think we're
>just talking about slightly different things, but I could be wrong.
>
>> After thinking
>> it over, I plan next time I do a large grain bill to collect a lot
>> more wort, and to facilitate boiling it down I would leave the lid off
>> for a good portion of the time. (I usually leave it partly on to
>> avoid excess evaporation, but perhaps there are circumstances where a
>> greater evap. rate would be useful.)
>
>IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
>
Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
lid on/off issue.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:45:53
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Tue, 31 2006 17:12:42 -0500, < > wrote:
>>IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
>>
> Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
> compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
> have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
> it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
> lid on/off issue.
Just the whole DMS thing. It's fairly debatable whether leaving the
lid partially on will cause any problem. Personally, I just like to
play it safe and leave it completely off. Depending on the geometry of
your kettle and strength of the heat source during the boil, you can
expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
batch (with the lid off). That means for full boils, if you don't want
to have to top off afterwards you should start with somewhere between 6
and 6.5 gallons. That seems to be fairly standard procedure.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:57:02
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On Tue, 31 2006 17:12:42 -0500, <> wrote:
>>> IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
>>>
>> Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
>> compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
>> have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
>> it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
>>
>> I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
>> lid on/off issue.
>
> Just the whole DMS thing. It's fairly debatable whether leaving the
> lid partially on will cause any problem. Personally, I just like to
> play it safe and leave it completely off. Depending on the geometry of
> your kettle and strength of the heat source during the boil, you can
> expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
> batch (with the lid off). That means for full boils, if you don't want
> to have to top off afterwards you should start with somewhere between 6
> and 6.5 gallons. That seems to be fairly standard procedure.
>
>
> John.
I've done it both ways -- even with the lid just cracked a couple of
inches, DMS is no problem. It's really volatile stuff.
However, with the lid closed when the boil is done it can be a problem,
particularly with certain -- but not all -- pilsener malts. Dunno about
ale malts.
The only DMS issues I've ever seen in my own beers were when I
whirlpooled, covered, waited a while (maybe 15 minutes), and then cooled
with a CF chiller. Even then, the malt brand seems to make a difference.
Good way to turn a Helles into a nice American Standard lager.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:21:43
From: JS
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Tue, 31 2006 16:57:02 -0600, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n
Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com > wrote:
>John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 2006 17:12:42 -0500, <> wrote:
>>>> IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
>>>>
>>> Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
>>> compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
>>> have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
>>> it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
>>>
>>> I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
>>> lid on/off issue.
>>
>> Just the whole DMS thing. It's fairly debatable whether leaving the
>> lid partially on will cause any problem. Personally, I just like to
>> play it safe and leave it completely off. Depending on the geometry of
>> your kettle and strength of the heat source during the boil, you can
>> expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
>> batch (with the lid off). That means for full boils, if you don't want
>> to have to top off afterwards you should start with somewhere between 6
>> and 6.5 gallons. That seems to be fairly standard procedure.
>>
>>
>> John.
>
>I've done it both ways -- even with the lid just cracked a couple of
>inches, DMS is no problem. It's really volatile stuff.
>
>However, with the lid closed when the boil is done it can be a problem,
>particularly with certain -- but not all -- pilsener malts. Dunno about
>ale malts.
>
>The only DMS issues I've ever seen in my own beers were when I
>whirlpooled, covered, waited a while (maybe 15 minutes), and then cooled
>with a CF chiller. Even then, the malt brand seems to make a difference.
>Good way to turn a Helles into a nice American Standard lager.
Then it seems reasonable to chill first, then whirlpool, which is what
I always do. What is the reasoning behind whirlpooling before
chilling?
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:33:11
From: John Bleichert
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
JS <jayceeessfouratfrontiernetdotnet > wrote:
> On Tue, 31 2006 16:57:02 -0600, The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n
> Salty <mikey666@666swampgas.666com> wrote:
>
>>John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 2006 17:12:42 -0500, <> wrote:
>>>>> IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
>>>>>
>>>> Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
>>>> compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
>>>> have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
>>>> it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
>>>> lid on/off issue.
>>>
>>> Just the whole DMS thing. It's fairly debatable whether leaving the
>>> lid partially on will cause any problem. Personally, I just like to
>>> play it safe and leave it completely off. Depending on the geometry of
>>> your kettle and strength of the heat source during the boil, you can
>>> expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
>>> batch (with the lid off). That means for full boils, if you don't want
>>> to have to top off afterwards you should start with somewhere between 6
>>> and 6.5 gallons. That seems to be fairly standard procedure.
>>>
>>>
>>> John.
>>
>>I've done it both ways -- even with the lid just cracked a couple of
>>inches, DMS is no problem. It's really volatile stuff.
>>
>>However, with the lid closed when the boil is done it can be a problem,
>>particularly with certain -- but not all -- pilsener malts. Dunno about
>>ale malts.
>>
>>The only DMS issues I've ever seen in my own beers were when I
>>whirlpooled, covered, waited a while (maybe 15 minutes), and then cooled
>>with a CF chiller. Even then, the malt brand seems to make a difference.
>>Good way to turn a Helles into a nice American Standard lager.
>
> Then it seems reasonable to chill first, then whirlpool, which is what
> I always do. What is the reasoning behind whirlpooling before
> chilling?
>
Doesn't whirlpooling before chilling wreck your hops schedule timing?
-----------------------------------------------
John Bleichert syborg@earthlink.net
The heat from below can burn your eyes out!!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:15:08
From: Joel
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>On Tue, 31 2006 17:12:42 -0500, <> wrote:
>>>IMO, you should always leave the lid off during the boil.
>>>
>> Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
>> compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
>> have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
>> it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
>>
>> I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
>> lid on/off issue.
>
>Just the whole DMS thing. It's fairly debatable whether leaving the
>lid partially on will cause any problem.
Debatable, sure, but since my very first all-grain
batch (on a weak apartment stove that didn't give a good
boil), I've never had DMS in my beer at a perceptible
level [*], and we're talking literally hundreds of batches.
I always have my brew pot roughly 80% covered. As long as
one gets a full boil the DMS precursors will be driven off
if they have an avenue of escape.
>...you can
>expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
>batch (with the lid off).
How does having the lid off versus partially covering
impact evaporation rate?
[*] Perceived by either me, my beer judge friends, or
beer judges blindly evaluating my entries in competition.
--
Joel Plutchak
"Things just fall apart." - Now They'll Sleep (Belly)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 19:40:15
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:15:08 +0000 (UTC), <plutchak@see.headers > wrote:
>>...you can
>>expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
>>batch (with the lid off).
>
> How does having the lid off versus partially covering
> impact evaporation rate?
All else being equal, putting the lid on will hold in more heat, which
means that you boil off more water. It's not really evaporation, but
the heat converting water to steam during the boil. On the other hand,
having the lid partially on also means that some of the steam will
condense on the lid and fall back down into the beer. I have no
idea what total effect it has, but I would be surprised if the net
effect was zero.
You can easily just turn the heat down a bit with the lid on to
compensate. The only reason I put "with the lid off" above is because
that's what I have experience with. The boil off rate may be similar
with the lid on, but I don't do it that way so can't say for certain.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:27:10
From:
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
: >...you can
: >expect to lose around a gallon or so during the boil for a 5 gallon
: >batch (with the lid off).
: How does having the lid off versus partially covering
: impact evaporation rate?
The lid partially off will raise the partial pressure of water vapor of the
air surrounding the top of the boiling wort. With more partial pressure, the
equilibrium of water vapor to liquid water will be shifted more toward liquid water.
Contrast this to having a fully open pot and a fan blowing on it to aid in the
steam removal. That will result in *more* water loss than a simple rolling boil.
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:59:37
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
JS wrote:
> Why? If I do that with normal volumes, I'll just have to add water to
> compensate. What is the advantage of leaving the lid off? I never
> have it completely on except when getting it to a boil. Then I prop
> it partly on with the spoon resting across the diameter of kettle.
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just want your opinion about the
> lid on/off issue.
I think the general ROT is that you want at least 15% open space in
order to drive off DMS. I'd bet you have that the way you do it.
--------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:58:22
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what you were saying. You did a 1.091 beer
> collecting 7 gal in the kettle and still got the same efficiency as when
> you did a 1.091 beer and collected 11 gal?
Yep, thats's what I'm getting at. No real difference in mash efficiency
between the 2.
------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 19:42:06
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:58:22 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I understand what you were saying. You did a 1.091 beer
>> collecting 7 gal in the kettle and still got the same efficiency as when
>> you did a 1.091 beer and collected 11 gal?
>
> Yep, thats's what I'm getting at. No real difference in mash efficiency
> between the 2.
I don't see how that's possible. That would imply that the 4 extra gallons
of sparge water resulted in zero additional sugars in the wort. Seems kind
of weird.
John.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:06:07
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> I don't see how that's possible. That would imply that the 4 extra gallons
> of sparge water resulted in zero additional sugars in the wort. Seems kind
> of weird.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with that! I'm not explaining it, I'm just
reporting what I got from Promash....
-------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 21:29:15
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:06:07 -0800, <denny.g.conn@ci.eugene.or.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
>> I don't see how that's possible. That would imply that the 4 extra gallons
>> of sparge water resulted in zero additional sugars in the wort. Seems kind
>> of weird.
>
> Yeah, I'd have to agree with that! I'm not explaining it, I'm just
> reporting what I got from Promash....
Shouldn't need promash to figure it out. If you did the same grain bill,
sparged one with 7 gal and the other with 11 gal, and ended up with the same
OG corrected to a common volume... then it's true. I have a really hard
time believing it though. Kind of violates most of the basic principles of
what a sparge does, unless your runnings were 1.000 after 7 gallons.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 12:36:28
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Efficiency issues & large grain bills
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> Shouldn't need promash to figure it out. If you did the same grain bill,
> sparged one with 7 gal and the other with 11 gal, and ended up with the same
> OG corrected to a common volume... then it's true. I have a really hard
> time believing it though. Kind of violates most of the basic principles of
> what a sparge does, unless your runnings were 1.000 after 7 gallons.
Well, I was comparing to a different batch, so differnt grist..but,
IIRC, relatively close. I'll check my notes and get some examples and
repost as soon as I can...
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
|
