9" Vs 12" Ss False Bottom

[Pumpy]

(I feel like I'm on a posting rampage today!)

Can anyone enlighten me about the potential, perceived or real, differences between a 9" and a 12" Stainless False Bottom when used in a converted 50L keg?

The information I've found so far seems to indicate adequate extraction efficiency with the 9 inch-ers...

Any smart-arse who posts "duh, they're a different size!" will be shot

Cheers,
Tim

Phrak , I use a 12 " SS FB and found that it collapsed when i used my March pump ,I still use it but have to support it under to prevent it collapsing

Whilst I have not used one i think the 9" would be better

pumpy

 

[Ross]

Morebeer in the States used to distribute 9" 10" & 12" false bottoms. After extensive trials they found there was basically no difference between all 3 (efficiency wise), even when fly sparging in the same sized vessel. Hence they dropped the 10" one from there range. Personally if fly sparging (which i don't) I'd go for the largest one that comfortably fits my mash tun without coming too close to the edge, as channeling can easily become an issue - For batch sparging, I really believe there is bugger all difference.

cheers Ross

 

[schooey]

Channeling is more related to crush and how you treat the mash (stirring and drain speed) than the type of filtering device at the bottom of the tun.

Screwy

Cool, so I can just weld a 2" socket in the side of my next kettle, and cover it with a tea strainer and all will be well as long as I crack my grain properly? Right?

 

[Tony]

I wouldnt think it would make a huge difference between the sizes. More comes down to what suits you and your tun i guess.

I would love a 9"er...... i think a 12"er would be a bit big but tops to flash around at parties

 

[goatherder]

I'm happy with my 9". It's all about how you use it.

 

[Screwtop]

Cool, so I can just weld a 2" socket in the side of my next kettle, and cover it with a tea strainer and all will be well as long as I crack my grain properly? Right?

We were talkin Mash Tuns, but shit yeah, if you used something like that you'd probably have to lay your mash tun on it's side with the tea strainer side down, but the wort might run out the top and limit your volume :lol:

 

[Adamt]

BaaBra is happy with Incider's 3".

Sorry! I think this thread has been resolved and should be allowed to drift into frivolity.

 

[NickB]

My 6" braid is MORE than enough for BaaBra or the Chicks at the QLD swaps..... Most of them take the 6 months between swaps to recover as well......

Mods - you know what to do with this topic!!!! We've all had more than enough to say on this topic.

 

[porky]

Hmm, that's an intersting idea that could save me $50.

I presume that your star-shaped-structure is the actual top of the keg that you've removed?
Any old SS mesh will do? eg an el-cheapo SS sieve basket?

What'd you use to secure the mesh to the star? Looks like rivets?

Yes, it is the top of a keg type vessel.
No. any old ss mesh might do, but I did go and buy a piece of ss mesh much finer than most sieve baskets would have. Total cost....8 bucks. Not rivets, cut and drilled holes in some ss and welded through the holes to hold the mesh.

Bud

 

[porky]

I'm happy with my 9". It's all about how you use it.

and another thread goes down the toilet.....nice job mate

 

[schooey]

We were talkin Mash Tuns, but shit yeah, if you used something like that you'd probably have to lay your mash tun on it's side with the tea strainer side down, but the wort might run out the top and limit your volume :lol:

:huh: ... DOH!

But you still knew what I meant!... bah! point is gone now.... *slaps forehead*

 

[warrenlw63]

and an insightful genius (in my humble opinion anyway )

And mine!

Anyway the reality of it all is (being batch sparge specific) the FB is merely a gully trap type device to stop grain getting sucked through your drainage system. The idea being the grainbed itself is the filter.

Warren -

 

[Adamt]

Yep. I guess what I was trying to say is; should the FB be large enough (and porous enough), the flow through the FB is limited by the flow through the grain bed, not the other way around.

 

[porky]

Yep. I guess what I was trying to say is; should the FB be large enough (and porous enough), the flow through the FB is limited by the flow through the grain bed, not the other way around.

ding ding ding.....you win....go see screwy he will give you a camper

sorry screwtop.....couldn't resist.

 

[Phrak]

Oookay, I think I have my answer. Thanks for all the comments and feedback.

Tim

 

[Tim]

There is a lot of discussion about channelling here. I thought it was well documented that channelling only occurred in large shallow mash tuns. Its similar to how concrete sets and cracks, the water runs down the cracks rather than 'through' the concrete. Maybe its a bad analogy, but basically its not an issue with the small volumes that we use as home/craftbrewers. Graham Sanders goes into the issue at some length in one of his podcasts (August 06?) when he talks about different sparging methods. Its one of those home brew myths. Mash tun shape and pickup does however effect efficiency, but this is a seperate issue to channeling.

 

[Ross]

There is a lot of discussion about channelling here. I thought it was well documented that channelling only occurred in large shallow mash tuns.

Actually, channelling can be an issue with homebrew set ups, as it certainly is on mine.
My false bottom covers the entire bottom & makes it seal right against the edge of the tun.
With all but the slowest runoff, i just end up with a domed mountain of grain with huge channelling down the outsides.
It was one of the reasons i chose batch sparging against fly, as it's a real issue.

cheers ross

 

[Screwtop]

Actually, channelling can be an issue with homebrew set ups, as it certainly is on mine.

+1 for my setup whether I fly or batch sparge. But for a different reason, if the mash is stirred too much the flour which settles last covers the top of the grainbed in a mud like layer, draining then occurs down the sides and the grainbed resembles what Ross describes above and efficiency suffers. If stirring is kept to a minimum draining occurs evenly and the surface of the grainbed has no muddy covering. Tried varying the crush, but always ended up with some flour no matter what the setting.

Screwy

 

[rwmingis]

Channeling Smannelling... I use a 12" SS false bottom, do everything stock standard, and usually get between 75 and 80%. I've had even had a greater efficiency, but couldn't collect the extra as I ran out of kettle space. I might get channelling, dunno, but I make very good beer and at a decent efficiency.

How much more is a 12inch one, I say go the 12 incher. Almost twice the area, and half the flowrate through the bottom of the grain given the same sparge rate. I used to have a 9 incher with a bucket and got stuck sparges all the time, mind you I had a flexible tube leading to the tap at that time. Either way, if you have the ability, I highly recommend hard piping the false bottom as it will keep stuck sparges to a minimum. The flexible hoses tend to twist and crush under the grain bed weight when warm. With the large False bottom and relatively big bore pipe, I can just about open the tap wide open, wort gushes out, and no sticking. (mind you this is not how I sparge). A 1/2 to 3/4 inch elbow fits nicely through the FB hole so there's no need for threaded couplings and no grain gets through the gap. Makes setup and take down easier...

See photo:

 

[bradsbrew]

Would their be any negative effects to putting the tap on the bottom, underneath the false bottom, of one of those 50L SS mash tuns?