Direct fired single vessel BIAB.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I've seen some BIAB setups that don't sparge and still get reasonable efficiency. I can't find any of those examples right now...
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I've seen some BIAB setups that don't sparge and still get reasonable efficiency. I can't find any of those examples right now...


    I'm suspicious, but intrigued.

    I would think you could still sort-of sparge by pouring water over it or something.


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I've seen some BIAB setups that don't sparge and still get reasonable efficiency. I can't find any of those examples right now...


    I'm suspicious, but intrigued.

    I would think you could still sort-of sparge by pouring water over it or something.


    That's option two. My understanding is BIAB is usually mashed thin anyway, like quite thin. That will improve efficiency. I would think higher gravity brews would see drastically lower efficiency with no sparge.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Plus, in the setup I'm describing I'd lose at least 2 gallons below the false bottom. The mash would be epic thin assuming those system constraints.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I've seen some BIAB setups that don't sparge and still get reasonable efficiency. I can't find any of those examples right now...


    I'm suspicious, but intrigued.

    I would think you could still sort-of sparge by pouring water over it or something.


    That's option two. My understanding is BIAB is usually mashed thin anyway, like quite thin. That will improve efficiency. I would think higher gravity brews would see drastically lower efficiency with no sparge.


    I recall a mash that was too thin caused problems, but I'm so far out of the nerdery of brewing I can't remember what that problem was.


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I've seen some BIAB setups that don't sparge and still get reasonable efficiency. I can't find any of those examples right now...


    I'm suspicious, but intrigued.

    I would think you could still sort-of sparge by pouring water over it or something.


    That's option two. My understanding is BIAB is usually mashed thin anyway, like quite thin. That will improve efficiency. I would think higher gravity brews would see drastically lower efficiency with no sparge.


    I recall a mash that was too thin caused problems, but I'm so far out of the nerdery of brewing I can't remember what that problem was.


    Tannins probably. It's always tannins
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    C_B said:

    I've proven repeatedly that I can't/won't brew outside like I'm set up now. I've been thinking about RIMS, all electric, BIAB, basically any combination that would allow me to brew 5 gallon batches in the kitchen without using the stove. So follow me on this...

    Keggle with a 5500+ watt element mounted as low as possible. (i could easily pull in a 50A circuit to run a hotter element)
    False bottom build to sit about 1" above the element.
    Control the element with a PID.
    BIAB mash while recirculating from the bottom and returning on top of the grain.
    Pull the bag and ramp to boil.

    Why won't that work?



    Sounds reasonable. Do you plan to sparge at all? Or just say screw efficiency?


    I've seen some BIAB setups that don't sparge and still get reasonable efficiency. I can't find any of those examples right now...


    I'm suspicious, but intrigued.

    I would think you could still sort-of sparge by pouring water over it or something.


    That's option two. My understanding is BIAB is usually mashed thin anyway, like quite thin. That will improve efficiency. I would think higher gravity brews would see drastically lower efficiency with no sparge.


    I recall a mash that was too thin caused problems, but I'm so far out of the nerdery of brewing I can't remember what that problem was.


    Tannins probably. It's always tannins


    It's always the tannins....

    No, really, i think it was efficiency concerns, but those kinds of things are de-bunked all the time, so who knows.


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    Enzymes too diluted or something scientific sounding...


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    DrCurly said:

    Enzymes too diluted or something scientific sounding...



    That might be. I'd like to see @ceannt opinion.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    C_B said:

    DrCurly said:

    Enzymes too diluted or something scientific sounding...



    That might be. I'd like to see @ceannt opinion.


    we're going to need a bigger page.


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    DrCurly said:

    Enzymes too diluted or something scientific sounding...



    That sounds bogus to me. And if it was a real problem, just add a little time.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622

    DrCurly said:

    Enzymes too diluted or something scientific sounding...



    That sounds bogus to me. And if it was a real problem, just add a little time.


    Exactly. Like I said, I don't remember why I use to care about grain/water ratio. There was some reason for it.


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    DrCurly said:

    DrCurly said:

    Enzymes too diluted or something scientific sounding...



    That sounds bogus to me. And if it was a real problem, just add a little time.


    Exactly. Like I said, I don't remember why I use to care about grain/water ratio. There was some reason for it.


    better efficiency if you go thick and do three batch spagres.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    Seems like BIAB could have a quick dip in some water to really up the efficiency, but I get that would also make it far more complex.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619

    Seems like BIAB could have a quick dip in some water to really up the efficiency, but I get that would also make it far more complex.



    Just pulling it up and rinsing it with a gallon or two might do the trick. I haven't mathed any of this, I'm just wondering if the single vessel idea makes a lick of sense.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    Just do it. You'll see if it works. Worst case, you get wimpy beer.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619

    Just do it. You'll see if it works. Worst case, you get wimpy beer.



    To do this is would need appropriate bulkheads installed into the kettle. A heating element. PID wired to the element. A false bottom custom made and a huge grain bag.

    That's a couple hundred away? That's workable.

    Oh, and clean the pump. Because I think that is where I'm getting the funk.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    C_B said:

    Seems like BIAB could have a quick dip in some water to really up the efficiency, but I get that would also make it far more complex.



    Just pulling it up and rinsing it with a gallon or two might do the trick. I haven't mathed any of this, I'm just wondering if the single vessel idea makes a lick of sense.




    Thats what i did to start brewing all grain. Single vessel system biab. Sparge by pouring filtered water through the top of the bag after letting it drain. Worked great. Not sure why i switched to a two vessel system.


    Oh i thought a more complex meant more better. I was wrong

    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    C_B said:

    Just do it. You'll see if it works. Worst case, you get wimpy beer.



    To do this is would need appropriate bulkheads installed into the kettle. A heating element. PID wired to the element. A false bottom custom made and a huge grain bag.

    That's a couple hundred away? That's workable.

    Oh, and clean the pump. Because I think that is where I'm getting the funk.


    Honestly, unless you plan on doing complex step mashes, the pump is not necessary.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    Oh and thebfalse bottom isnt really necessary either. You're brewing in a bag.thats the best false bottom you can find.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969

    C_B
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Lakewood said:

    C_B said:

    Just do it. You'll see if it works. Worst case, you get wimpy beer.



    To do this is would need appropriate bulkheads installed into the kettle. A heating element. PID wired to the element. A false bottom custom made and a huge grain bag.

    That's a couple hundred away? That's workable.

    Oh, and clean the pump. Because I think that is where I'm getting the funk.


    Honestly, unless you plan on doing complex step mashes, the pump is not necessary.


    I don't really. But I need the pump to chill the batch, so I might as well recirc the whole time to insure even heat distribution.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Lakewood said:

    Oh and thebfalse bottom isnt really necessary either. You're brewing in a bag.thats the best false bottom you can find.



    Agreed. But I'd like to make absolutely sure the bag won't sink down far enough to sit on top of the heating element. Plus, the false bottom would be an extra line of filtration at the end.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    C_B said:

    Lakewood said:

    Oh and thebfalse bottom isnt really necessary either. You're brewing in a bag.thats the best false bottom you can find.



    Agreed. But I'd like to make absolutely sure the bag won't sink down far enough to sit on top of the heating element. Plus, the false bottom would be an extra line of filtration at the end.


    Borrow the rack from your toaster oven.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    The biggest drawback to a thin mash, is it screws up the ph.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    To a point, a thinner mash will give you a better efficiency for a no sparge brew.... but you sacrifice flavor
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    The optimum ratio for flavor is between 1.25, and 1.4 to 1
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    I see no real issues with the setup you are proposing, as long as the bag is big enough to allow you to stir the shucks out of it. But I don't understand why you would want to recirculate... keep it simple
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    The simpler, the more versatile
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    The biggest drawback to a "single vessel" system, is you won't be able to do a decoction mash
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    But... you could of course cheat... and use a pot on the stove for that
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    I see no real issues with the setup you are proposing, as long as the bag is big enough to allow you to stir the shucks out of it. But I don't understand why you would want to recirculate... keep it simple



    I would have to stir it every couple minutes I would think to avoid temperature stratification. Also, the pump will be sitting there hooked up for chilling anyway. But that brings up a point... You do five gallon batches, right? How do you chill?
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Yes, I do 5 gallon batches. I use an immersion chiller.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Silly question. .. but why not use a cooler to mash in, and use the electric pot as a boil kettle, and to heat up the strike water?
    You could still do it inside, and it might be easier in the long run...
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    And.... rust forming on the element bits would not be as much of an issue
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    Silly question. .. but why not use a cooler to mash in, and use the electric pot as a boil kettle, and to heat up the strike water?
    You could still do it inside, and it might be easier in the long run...


    Extra vessel equal more complexity. And I like the idea of single vessel BIAB.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    And.... rust forming on the element bits would not be as much of an issue



    I'll spend a little more on the element and get one with a stainless base.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    C_B said:

    ceannt said:

    Silly question. .. but why not use a cooler to mash in, and use the electric pot as a boil kettle, and to heat up the strike water?
    You could still do it inside, and it might be easier in the long run...


    Extra vessel equal more complexity. And I like the idea of single vessel BIAB.


    Equipment wise, yes, it's an extra component. .. but your brewday becomes a little more complex with the single vessel. However, if you just like the idea... you need no more justification.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    C_B said:

    ceannt said:

    And.... rust forming on the element bits would not be as much of an issue



    I'll spend a little more on the element and get one with a stainless base.


    That works, if you can find one
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    C_B said:

    ceannt said:

    And.... rust forming on the element bits would not be as much of an issue



    I'll spend a little more on the element and get one with a stainless base.


    That works, if you can find one


    http://www.theelectricbrewery.com/stainless-steel-heating-elements
    ceannt said:

    C_B said:

    ceannt said:

    Silly question. .. but why not use a cooler to mash in, and use the electric pot as a boil kettle, and to heat up the strike water?
    You could still do it inside, and it might be easier in the long run...


    Extra vessel equal more complexity. And I like the idea of single vessel BIAB.


    Equipment wise, yes, it's an extra component. .. but your brewday becomes a little more complex with the single vessel. However, if you just like the idea... you need no more justification.

    This is kinda where I am. I would say the complexity is a wash and I like the idea.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    There you go!
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    Seems like you have a good plan then. It'll work and aside from the pump and plumbing, it should be easy to clean.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Just saw this.... not quite as cheap as your plan though....
    http://brewhaequipment.com/products/biac-all-in-one-brewing-system-package
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    Just saw this.... not quite as cheap as your plan though....
    http://brewhaequipment.com/products/biac-all-in-one-brewing-system-package



    Ha. That's sweet.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    ceannt said:

    Just saw this.... not quite as cheap as your plan though....
    http://brewhaequipment.com/products/biac-all-in-one-brewing-system-package



    I like it.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    You cant do the angle with weldless. Beyond that, it depends on the equipement you have or the guy you'll be taking it to.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    Fwiw, assuming you are going to the same person for both, it shouldnt cost more to tig weld than to braze it. The temp of the process and the material makes no difference in how much time it takes. If they quote a significant price difference between the two they are trying to con you.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Lakewood said:

    Fwiw, assuming you are going to the same person for both, it shouldnt cost more to tig weld than to braze it. The temp of the process and the material makes no difference in how much time it takes. If they quote a significant price difference between the two they are trying to con you.



    I meant solder myself. TIG I can't do. I have a couple guys that do excellent work on what I've taken to them. Not sure about TIGing stainless. I'm assuming they can, I just need to call.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    C_B said:

    Lakewood said:

    Fwiw, assuming you are going to the same person for both, it shouldnt cost more to tig weld than to braze it. The temp of the process and the material makes no difference in how much time it takes. If they quote a significant price difference between the two they are trying to con you.



    I meant solder myself. TIG I can't do. I have a couple guys that do excellent work on what I've taken to them. Not sure about TIGing stainless. I'm assuming they can, I just need to call.


    Ah, gotcha. Then the price difference with be noticeable.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    I have a small mig welder that ive used on kettles. It does a mediocre job
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • jeepinjeepinjeepinjeepin
    Posts: 18,099
    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.
    Sign here______________________________
  • jeepinjeepinjeepinjeepin
    Posts: 18,099
    Sign here______________________________
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • jeepinjeepinjeepinjeepin
    Posts: 18,099
    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).


    That's tough to recover from.
    Sign here______________________________
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969

    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).


    That's tough to recover from.


    There are more kegs to be had.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Lakewood said:

    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).


    That's tough to recover from.


    There are more kegs to be had.


    Correct. And I do have a third keg. But I don't want to mess with it.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,695
    C_B said:

    Lakewood said:

    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).


    That's tough to recover from.


    There are more kegs to be had.


    Correct. And I do have a third keg. But I don't want to mess with it.


    because you want to give it to me...
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,695
    Lakewood said:

    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).


    That's tough to recover from.


    There are more kegs to be had.


    they're too expensive here. apparently brewing is popular now.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969

    Lakewood said:

    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    Next stop. Figuring out exactly how I want the kettle set up. Weldless/soldered/TIG'd. I think I'm going to go with a bottom drain set off to the side coming out 45* through the handle hole. Element in the side, thermometer and site glass in the side.



    Inverted with bottom cut out and draining through triclamp fitting from the sprear/tap.


    I've seen that. And considered it. Both of my kegs are already modified (with the top removed).


    That's tough to recover from.


    There are more kegs to be had.


    they're too expensive here. apparently brewing is popular now.


    they've always had a widely varying price range. I spent $60 on one from a 3rd party, and got 4 for free from a brewery. There are no rules.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    In other news, why do I need a full on false bottom? I don't if I'm going BIAB. SS pizza pan and some SS bolts to protect the bag from the element. Done and done.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • jeepinjeepinjeepinjeepin
    Posts: 18,099
    C_B said:

    In other news, why do I need a full on false bottom? I don't if I'm going BIAB. SS pizza pan and some SS bolts to protect the bag from the element. Done and done.



    Sounds good to me. The bag is providing the filtering. You may have to lift the bag for the last to drain, but maybe not.
    Sign here______________________________
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619

    C_B said:

    In other news, why do I need a full on false bottom? I don't if I'm going BIAB. SS pizza pan and some SS bolts to protect the bag from the element. Done and done.



    Sounds good to me. The bag is providing the filtering. You may have to lift the bag for the last to drain, but maybe not.


    Most likely.

    My larger concern now is being able to do 5 gallon batches in a keggle. I'm going to loose at least two gallons under the element guard. More to come once I get the element in I suppose.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    In other news, why do I need a full on false bottom? I don't if I'm going BIAB. SS pizza pan and some SS bolts to protect the bag from the element. Done and done.



    Sounds good to me. The bag is providing the filtering. You may have to lift the bag for the last to drain, but maybe not.


    Most likely.

    My larger concern now is being able to do 5 gallon batches in a keggle. I'm going to loose at least two gallons under the element guard. More to come once I get the element in I suppose.


    I'm not sure i get the "lose 2 gallons" thing. Do you mean losing space for the mash or actual wort loss? Etiher way, a 15 gallon keggle which comfortably holds 12.5 to 13.5 gallons is gonna make easy work of a 5 gallon batch unless you are shooting for all-grain barley wine.
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    Lakewood said:

    C_B said:

    C_B said:

    In other news, why do I need a full on false bottom? I don't if I'm going BIAB. SS pizza pan and some SS bolts to protect the bag from the element. Done and done.



    Sounds good to me. The bag is providing the filtering. You may have to lift the bag for the last to drain, but maybe not.


    Most likely.

    My larger concern now is being able to do 5 gallon batches in a keggle. I'm going to loose at least two gallons under the element guard. More to come once I get the element in I suppose.


    I'm not sure i get the "lose 2 gallons" thing. Do you mean losing space for the mash or actual wort loss? Etiher way, a 15 gallon keggle which comfortably holds 12.5 to 13.5 gallons is gonna make easy work of a 5 gallon batch unless you are shooting for all-grain barley wine.


    Losing space for the mash. Lets say 5.5 gallons strike water for a 15# grain bill. If I loose two gallons below the false bottom, won't that turn into a seriously thick mash? Or can I just up it to 2qts/lb?
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    In this case, bigger would be better. Huh.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Ok.... are you going to port this thing?
    If so, will the port be above, or below the false bottom?
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Don't guess at the volume below the false bottom, freaking measure it.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Calculate your strike water volume normally, taking grain absorption into account. To that volume add one half of the volume below the false bottom.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    If the port is above the false bottom, add the total volume lost to your sparge water to account for the losd.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    If below, don't worry about it
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    But I would be tempted to discard the first little bit that drains.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    We're it me, I would either not port it at all... and syphon. .. (bad things can happen with ports and valves) or put the port above, barely.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    During the mash, you are not really losing that volume, it is still available, since you will be stirring, and such, but it will limit the total amount of water making contact with the grain at any given time. Hence the one half increase in strike water volume.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Not sure if any of that makes any sense at all written out...
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    You think you could put that in one damn post?

    jeepinjeepinJayrizzle
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    It does. I'm planning to put a bottom drain in at the edge of the kettle. Overall loss will be minimal. During a recirculating mash all of that water will be functional in the mash, but not a factor in mash thickness.
    I want to pull off the bottom because that is where the heating will occur so I want make sure the wort is circulating around the element.
    I'm guessing because I don't have the element yet so an actual mock up gives me a rough guess of 2 gallons.
    ceannt said:

    During the mash, you are not really losing that volume, it is still available, since you will be stirring, and such, but it will limit the total amount of water making contact with the grain at any given time. Hence the one half increase in strike water volume.


    This is really the crux of my concern. All of the water will be recirculating through the mash, just not all of it all the time. Can I go north of 1.5qts/lb in order to obtain an appropriate mash thickness given so much wort below the bag/FB?
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    I need to start building the damn thing already.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Don't need a mock up. Build it. Fill it with water up to the false bottom. Measure that volume, and base your calculations accordingly. If you are concerned with an overly thick mash, calculate the total strike water volume such that you have a 1.25 quarts per pound of grain above the false bottom. (Add that volume to the equation)
    But you have to know what that volume is.... relatively accurately.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    Don't need a mock up. Build it. Fill it with water up to the false bottom. Measure that volume, and base your calculations accordingly.

    But I don't have the stuff in my possesion yet and I wanna talk about it now because I'm bored.
    ceannt said:

    If you are concerned with an overly thick mash, calculate the total strike water volume such that you have a 1.25 quarts per pound of grain above the false bottom. (Add that volume to the equation)
    But you have to know what that volume is.... relatively accurately.


    That's the answer I was looking for. Or at least some confirmation that it would be ok to do that.
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    Ok, I did a little figuring for an example:
    Say you want 15 pounds of grain. 1.25 gt/pd = 4.688 gal. If the measured volume below the false bottom is exactly 2 gallons.... use 4.688 + 2 = 6.688 gal.
    This will give you a total mash volume of 7.886 gallons, with a relative mash thickness of 1.78.
    I will assume that after conversion, you are going to heat everything up to mash out temp. Then sparge. One 2.5 gallon sparge will give you a post boil volume of roughly 5.5 gallons.
    The maximum volume in your vessel amounts to 10.39 gallons with the grain still in there.

    This is of course a bit rough, but will give you an idea of what you are up against. Once you have an accurate volume below the false bottom, just tweak the calculation accordingly.
    The relative mash thickness may seem really thin, but the actual thickness around the grain is not, so it shouldn't have a negative impact on the beer's character. You may also get some crazy good efficiency.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    Ok, I did a little figuring for an example:
    Say you want 15 pounds of grain. 1.25 gt/pd = 4.688 gal. If the measured volume below the false bottom is exactly 2 gallons.... use 4.688 + 2 = 6.688 gal.
    This will give you a total mash volume of 7.886 gallons, with a relative mash thickness of 1.78.
    I will assume that after conversion, you are going to heat everything up to mash out temp. Then sparge. One 2.5 gallon sparge will give you a post boil volume of roughly 5.5 gallons.
    The maximum volume in your vessel amounts to 10.39 gallons with the grain still in there.

    This is of course a bit rough, but will give you an idea of what you are up against. Once you have an accurate volume below the false bottom, just tweak the calculation accordingly.
    The relative mash thickness may seem really thin, but the actual thickness around the grain is not, so it shouldn't have a negative impact on the beer's character. You may also get some crazy good efficiency.



    Boom. Thanks.
    I was not taking absorption into account, giving me a stupid low sparge and thus confusing me.
    The bold part is what I no clue on other than I knew it may/may not be a problem...
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • FuzzyFuzzy
    Posts: 49,695
    C_B said:

    You think you could put that in one damn post?



    banned.
    The pinnacle of lame and awesome in one singular moment. -Lake
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    To a point, a thinner mash will give you better efficiency.
    To a point, a thicker mash will give you a better beer with more flavor.
    I like to keep it between 1.25 and 1.3... mostly so I end up with an easily measured strike water volume.
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • C_BC_B
    Posts: 88,619
    ceannt said:

    To a point, a thinner mash will give you better efficiency.
    To a point, a thicker mash will give you a better beer with more flavor.
    I like to keep it between 1.25 and 1.3... mostly so I end up with an easily measured strike water volume.



    I used to aim for 1.25 and usually did a double batch sparge. I don't remember the math, I think that was in a cooler that was really too small.

    Mainly though, I don't want to make a kettle that will require a 1.75qts/lb mash overall just to make up for the liquid below the FB if that will seriously degrade the overall flavor of the beer. "To a point..." I want to know what that point it.

    Maybe I'll just have to always make big beers. [-O<
    "On it. I hate software." ~Cpt Snarklepants
  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    I never worried much about the mash thickness. just get enough water in there to get everything wet. but dont add so much that you can't sparge a bit at mash out. In my rig i dont even measure the amount of water going into the mash.

    C_B
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • ceanntceannt
    Posts: 53,828
    C_B said:

    ceannt said:

    To a point, a thinner mash will give you better efficiency.
    To a point, a thicker mash will give you a better beer with more flavor.
    I like to keep it between 1.25 and 1.3... mostly so I end up with an easily measured strike water volume.



    I used to aim for 1.25 and usually did a double batch sparge. I don't remember the math, I think that was in a cooler that was really too small.

    Mainly though, I don't want to make a kettle that will require a 1.75qts/lb mash overall just to make up for the liquid below the FB if that will seriously degrade the overall flavor of the beer. "To a point..." I want to know what that point it.

    Maybe I'll just have to always make big beers. [-O<


    It shouldn't degrade the flavor, since the mash is still "thick" around the grain. Sure that water is there, but it isn't in contact at any given time. This may give you very good efficiency, since the wort won't be as loaded with sugars and stuff.
    The real issue, is that until you make it, and measure that volume, you have no idea what it is. .. it may only be 1 gallon, or a half gallon... it could also be more than your wild ass guess of 2.... you just don't know.
    You can also just do a thicker mash... might be a little more difficult to stir, but you can go down a good bit from the optimum 1.25, and still get good results.
    I say go for it. Build the sucker. Experiment with it. Have fun. Stop freaking stressing out over what sounds like a hell of a good idea.
    Write it up. Take lots of pics during the build. Document the whole thing, and post it. Who knows, you may be on to the next big thing, and help a lot of folks out. You could also fail miserably, but so what... you don't know until you follow through with the idea.

    C_B
    Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622
    Lakewood said:

    I never worried much about the mash thickness. just get enough water in there to get everything wet. but dont add so much that you can't sparge a bit at mash out. In my rig i dont even measure the amount of water going into the mash.



    I measure. It's exactly "about half full in my mash tun." Unless I'm doing a big beer, then it's exactly "a little more than half full."

    C_B


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B

  • ThymThym
    Posts: 121,969
    DrCurly said:

    Lakewood said:

    I never worried much about the mash thickness. just get enough water in there to get everything wet. but dont add so much that you can't sparge a bit at mash out. In my rig i dont even measure the amount of water going into the mash.



    I measure. It's exactly "about half full in my mash tun." Unless I'm doing a big beer, then it's exactly "a little more than half full."


    i shoot for "i can see a little liquid on top of the grain"
    The only thing between me and a train wreck is blind luck..... - Kenny
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    Lakewood said:

    DrCurly said:

    Lakewood said:

    I never worried much about the mash thickness. just get enough water in there to get everything wet. but dont add so much that you can't sparge a bit at mash out. In my rig i dont even measure the amount of water going into the mash.



    I measure. It's exactly "about half full in my mash tun." Unless I'm doing a big beer, then it's exactly "a little more than half full."


    i shoot for "i can see a little liquid on top of the grain"


    that's the best density I've found.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    Then I do slightly less than that for a batch sparge, then do that again.
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • JayrizzleJayrizzle
    Posts: 90,299
    DrCurly said:

    Lakewood said:

    I never worried much about the mash thickness. just get enough water in there to get everything wet. but dont add so much that you can't sparge a bit at mash out. In my rig i dont even measure the amount of water going into the mash.



    I measure. It's exactly "about half full in my mash tun." Unless I'm doing a big beer, then it's exactly "a little more than half full."

    Y U Do half batches?
    "I don't have TP, but I do have ammo."
    -Some guy in Ohio
  • CurlyFatCurlyFat
    Posts: 71,622

    DrCurly said:

    Lakewood said:

    I never worried much about the mash thickness. just get enough water in there to get everything wet. but dont add so much that you can't sparge a bit at mash out. In my rig i dont even measure the amount of water going into the mash.



    I measure. It's exactly "about half full in my mash tun." Unless I'm doing a big beer, then it's exactly "a little more than half full."

    Y U Do half batches?


    No, that's how much water I put in before I add the grain.


    I took a short one a couple hours ago. It was nice. --
    C_B