# Manifold For Mash Tun



## Brewme (9/11/10)

Hi,

I'm in the process of making a manifold for my esky/tun using 1/2" copper pipe following the guidelines of John Palmer.

I can't seem to find the spacings for the slots to be cut in the pipe. Or the depth. Or the thickness.

Would a cut along the length of the 4 pipes (250mm long each) with a dremel blade (about 1mm) be OK ? Or do the slots have to be cut at 90 deg to the pipe.

Any advice is welcome.

Cheers


----------



## StraussyStrauss (9/11/10)

I cuts slots 12mm apart. As long as it is uniform all the way along. And about half way down.

A long cut right down the centre would work too I guess...even more uniform... harder to do though. 

SS


----------



## warra48 (9/11/10)

I made a copper manifold from inch pipe.

My slots were cut with a fine hacksaw blade. The slots are about 1 cm apart to about 30 to 40% of the thickness of the pipe, straight across the pipe. 
I batch sparge, and have the slots facing downward , and my manifold lies totally flat on the bottom of the mashtun.

I reckon a Dremel blade of about 1 mm thickness will work perfectly well. Wish I had thought of it at the time, but my Dremel lives on my model building desk, not in my workshop.


----------



## yardy (9/11/10)

Brewme said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm in the process of making a manifold for my esky/tun using 1/2" copper pipe following the guidelines of John Palmer.
> 
> ...




some info here http://www.homebrewdownunder.com/index.php?topic=948.0

Dave


----------



## Barley Belly (9/11/10)

Here is a pic of mine upside down to show the slots.

I cut the slots around 10mm apart and around 40% of the way through.

I started using a hacksaw but it was a pain in the bum, then the old man suggested a 1mm 4" blade on the angle grinder. Went like a hot knife through butter, bit of a cleanup with a rotary wire brush and good to go.

Hope it's a help


----------



## MaltyHops (9/11/10)

StraussyStrauss said:


> ...
> A long cut right down the centre would work too I guess...even more uniform... harder to do though.
> ...


A bit off centre on both sides would be better I would have thought?
Assuming cuts are on the underside, a centre cut would just be covered
by the tun bottom surface.

T.


----------



## MattC (9/11/10)

warra48 said:


> I made a copper manifold from inch pipe.
> 
> My slots were cut with a fine hacksaw blade. The slots are about 1 cm apart to about 30 to 40% of the thickness of the pipe, straight across the pipe.
> I batch sparge, and have the slots facing downward , and my manifold lies totally flat on the bottom of the mashtun.






Barley Belly said:


> I cut the slots around 10mm apart and around 40% of the way through.
> 
> Hope it's a help



Same here, works very well!!

Cheers


----------



## rotten (11/11/10)

MattC said:


> Same here, works very well!!
> 
> Cheers



+1, I have the same as Warra48. In fact he proved to me at least it was worth doing. If you read Palmer properly he states it makes diddly squat of difference whether thay face down, up, sideways or any other way. I however face mine down and underlet to minimise doughballs.
Cheers


----------



## Cocko (11/11/10)




----------



## manticle (11/11/10)

yardy said:


> some info here http://www.homebrewdownunder.com/index.php?topic=948.0
> 
> Dave




When I was making mine, this guide was invaluable.


----------



## MHB (11/11/10)

1 cut along the pipe, let's just say the pipe is around 250 mm long, the cut would be about 200 mm effective length, to keep it easy say 1mm wide so 200 mm2 of void (hole).
In the same length cuts every 10 mm so 20 of them, call it 40% through, diameter of a " (12.7mm) pipe will be 39.9 mm 40 % of that is 15.95 mm, by 1 mm wide, 20 of gives 319 mm2 

Strangely enough just of the top of my head I thought the difference would have been greater, it is often good to check a hunch with a calculator.
Now how about 2 longways cuts at say a quarter or third diameter still pointing down, but neither flat on the bottom, gives you 400 mm2. Dead space in the tun would drop by 5-6 mm, might not sound like much but losses all add up.
Interesting thought, and yes those 1 mm thick angle grinder blades are very handy, would be the nuts for this job.

MHB


----------



## rotten (12/11/10)

Pics please MHB! My hands ain't that steady. :mellow:


----------



## Brewme (14/11/10)

MHB said:


> 1 cut along the pipe, let's just say the pipe is around 250 mm long, the cut would be about 200 mm effective length, to keep it easy say 1mm wide so 200 mm2 of void (hole).
> In the same length cuts every 10 mm so 20 of them, call it 40% through, diameter of a " (12.7mm) pipe will be 39.9 mm 40 % of that is 15.95 mm, by 1 mm wide, 20 of gives 319 mm2
> 
> Strangely enough just of the top of my head I thought the difference would have been greater, it is often good to check a hunch with a calculator.
> ...



Would 3 cuts along the length of the pipe be better? I did a practice run using the Dremel with a 1/2mm blade with no problems. Easier to control than a 4" angle grinder.

Would 3 cuts @ 1/2mm be enough, or is it better to go with 1mm ?

Another alternative would be to use 4 of those SS braided water connectors. I can't see the point of using just one. 

Any further advice before I start putting my mash tun together ?

Cheers


----------



## MHB (14/11/10)

Remembering that I have never done this, it was just an interesting idea.

General rules (well guidelines really) slots in lauter bottoms are usually 1-1.5 mm, small enough to keep chunks of grain out, but not so small that they block up too quickly.
The optimum amount of void would be around 20-40% of the surface area of the tun for a commercial high speed lauter (high speed means under an hour and a half). For a home brewer, if you only have a " outlet pipe once the total void area is 5-10 times that there probably isn't much point in trying for more. 12.75 mm copper pipe is going to have an ID of around 10 mm, but even at 12.7 mm the area is only about 125mm2.
That really is going to be your limiting figure.

So I figure three pipes with two 200 mm slots would be heaps, as would the conventional cutting system. Just a matter of which is easier for you.

MHB


----------



## Brewme (25/11/10)

MHB said:


> 1 cut along the pipe, let's just say the pipe is around 250 mm long, the cut would be about 200 mm effective length, to keep it easy say 1mm wide so 200 mm2 of void (hole).
> In the same length cuts every 10 mm so 20 of them, call it 40% through, diameter of a " (12.7mm) pipe will be 39.9 mm 40 % of that is 15.95 mm, by 1 mm wide, 20 of gives 319 mm2
> 
> Strangely enough just of the top of my head I thought the difference would have been greater, it is often good to check a hunch with a calculator.
> ...



JUST FOR INFO:

I made 2 cuts (1mm blade) along the length of the 1/2'' pipe about 90 deg apart.

Bad move. The thin piece just flopped around.

The next piece of pipe I made a series of cuts about 55mm along the line leaving about 3-4mm between each cut. Then turned the pipe 90 deg and done it again starting at a different point.

Turned out better than a bought one 

I opted for the 4 pipes according to John Palmer's diagrams for best flow.

Cheers


----------



## cdbrown (26/11/10)

rotten said:


> +1, I have the same as Warra48. In fact he proved to me at least it was worth doing. If you read Palmer properly he states it makes diddly squat of difference whether thay face down, up, sideways or any other way. I however face mine down and underlet to minimise doughballs.
> Cheers



Listening to Brewstrong podcast you'll hear Palmer and Jamil stating it's best to have them facing down - it's nothing to do with flow, but the amount of liquid you can extract from the tun, if facing up, anything below the cuts will be left behind, by turning it over you'll get more liquid out. They also go into spacings and the benefit - having too many you might get more liquids coming out near the tap rather than uniformly across the manifold, too little can be the same effect. They recommend around a 1/2" spacing which generally provides alot of slots for draining.


----------



## Barley Belly (26/11/10)

Brewme said:


> JUST FOR INFO:
> 
> I made 2 cuts (1mm blade) along the length of the 1/2'' pipe about 90 deg apart.
> 
> ...



Any piccies??


----------



## Brewme (26/11/10)

Barley Belly said:


> Any piccies??



Hi,

I got the pipes, fittings and copper wire soaking in sodium percarbonate at the moment for a clean.

I will post the piccies, to the best of my limited ability, tomorrow after the soak. Hope they clean up OK.

I'll also have a tap fitted to the esky/tun to control the flow of the liquid.

Cheers


----------



## Brewme (27/11/10)

Here are the pics, reduced in size. Not the best quality.

I used 3 lengths of copper wire to hold the manifold together as I didn't want to solder. Easier to take apart and clean.

I didn't have to drill any holes in the esky for the bulkhead. Just used what plumbing fittings I had. Easily converted back to ordinary esky. Just screw in the original bung.

Cheers


----------



## pokolbinguy (27/11/10)

You might want to attach the photos Brewme


----------



## Brewme (28/11/10)

pokolbinguy said:


> You might want to attach the photos Brewme



Hi,

Yeah, I realized I forgot that process after I went to bed.

Here goes...











I guess I could have done a better job with the wires to make it look a bit neater. But they seem to do the job. Should keep the pipes in place when stirring the mash.

Cheers


----------



## Gavo (28/11/10)

cdbrown said:


> Listening to Brewstrong podcast you'll hear Palmer and Jamil stating it's best to have them facing down - it's nothing to do with flow, but the amount of liquid you can extract from the tun, if facing up, anything below the cuts will be left behind, by turning it over you'll get more liquid out. They also go into spacings and the benefit - having too many you might get more liquids coming out near the tap rather than uniformly across the manifold, too little can be the same effect. They recommend around a 1/2" spacing which generally provides alot of slots for draining.




Would agree with both statements here. I have my manifold facing downand have done test runs with just water and would not have any more than 500ml left at the end of draining. My slots are about 5mm apart and I notice when cleaning the tubes out with the hose that the water runs out of the first half of the slots far more than the last half. Still works fine though so won't be loosing sleep over it.

Gavo.


----------



## mje1980 (28/11/10)

Guys you have got me thinking about going from SS braid to a copper manifold. Anyone done comparitive tests between the 2??. I used a copper manifold years ago, but i syphoned the wort out. As you can imagine i quickly went to an SS braid haha. Now im thinking ( about my whole setup actually ) and im wondering if i'll get less losses with a copper manifold.


----------



## under (28/11/10)

mje1980 said:


> Guys you have got me thinking about going from SS braid to a copper manifold. Anyone done comparitive tests between the 2??. I used a copper manifold years ago, but i syphoned the wort out. As you can imagine i quickly went to an SS braid haha. Now im thinking ( about my whole setup actually ) and im wondering if i'll get less losses with a copper manifold.



I think the SS braid is the problem with your setup. Heh.


----------



## matho (28/11/10)

I started out with a ss braid, when I was fly sparging I would get stuck sparges 
I went to a manifold to see if that would fix it and it did I also got a clearer wort but no increase in efficiency 
I am now in the process of making a false bottom to see if it will help my extract efficiency because of the limitations of a manifold in a round cooler I defantly don't have as much area coverage as the rectangular manifolds do.

Cheers matho


----------



## kieran (30/11/10)

I'm using braid and its brilliant. I always batch sparge too..


----------



## mje1980 (30/11/10)

kieran said:


> I'm using braid and its brilliant. I always batch sparge too..



I've been using mine for over 5 years now. Love it, never had a runoff issue etc. Im just thinking about channeling. If i do a copper manifold ( will do at work when quiet ), i'll make it so i can swap between my braid, and the manifold. Im just curious to see if there will be any difference, with getting more wort out, as the braid sometimes lifts off the bottom. May make no difference at all, but its worth a try. It all goes through the same bulkhead fitting so the only volume difference might be because the manifold sits down on the bottom, and the slots are right on the bottom surface, though the braid usually sits right on the bottom too so?? who knows. 

Im more thinking that possibly ( and this is a total guess ) because the braid is in the middle of my tun, some of the sugaz on the sides of the tun might not get to the middle, and by having slots on the sides and the middle, maybe those sugaz will have more chance to get down to the slots. Probably a wild arse theory, but i've been doing the same thing for a long time ( very happily i might add! ), and am just playing around.

Cheers


----------



## [email protected] (30/11/10)

Mje1980,

I too use the braid and have another esky set up to do a copper manifold and fly sparging but I still keep using the braid and batch sparging as it is easy and I generally get 73% efficiency consistantly. What I do to keep the braid on the bottom of the mash tun is cable tie at three locations to a piece of copper tube the length of the braid. The copper tube by the way was supposed to make it's way to the manifold but found a better use!


----------



## mje1980 (30/11/10)

Oh im happy with mine, just looking at different setups. Just had a quick read of How to brew, the "building a mash tun" section. I think its reasonable to compare an SS braid to a single copper pipe in his diagrams/examples, and there seems ( according to him ) an efficiency difference with more pipes. Interesting, and it made sense regards to water flow, though im no scientist. Think i'll chase this up.


----------



## boybrewer (30/11/10)

I built my false bottom from 1/2" copper tube my efficiency was around the 72% mark . I have just done a maiden run with it using my new HERMS system and my efficiency has now gone through the roof . I just did the numbers today and my efficiency rose to 93% . As this is the first run I am not expecting this rate all the time , but I will take it for now .


----------



## Cocko (1/12/10)

Brewme said:


> View attachment 42424




Looks like your read 'palmers' to much understanding...

Perfect IMO!

I am sure it would work without the 'wire'

Anyway, nice work!

2c.


----------



## rotten (2/12/10)

I soldered mine between all the t's etc, just left the long lenghts unsoldered for cleaning. You may find it a bit difficult to get all doughballs taken care of with the wire IMHO. well done all the same.
Cheers


----------



## Cocko (2/12/10)

rotten said:


> I soldered mine between all the t's etc, just left the long lenghts unsoldered for cleaning. You may find it a bit difficult to get all doughballs taken care of with the wire IMHO. well done all the same.
> Cheers



Exactly what I did and I find cleaning a breeze! +1 Rotten.

So, I reckon solder up these joins:


----------



## Cocko (3/12/10)

Example:


----------



## mje1980 (11/1/11)

Done a single and a double batch with the new copper manifold. Same method, batch sparge, flow it out as fast as it'll go. Efficiency has come up by a few points, nothing major though. Will keep using it. So far not too much different to my braid.


----------

