92 % Efficiency

[peaky]

My system seems to run 68% efficiency no matter what I do. Mill the grain really fine, fly sparge, batch sparge, 60min mash, 90min mash, check mash Ph, I think I've tried bloody near everything my system will allow me to do. Sometimes I'm slightly under or over 68%.



I've come to the conclusion that it must just be the way my system is designed, (esky mash tun, 3 tier grav) the good thing is it dosen't really seem to matter what I do when I'm brewing, I hit my targets pretty much bang on every time!

Gotta be happy with that :icon_cheers:

 

[rotten]

I'm relatively new to this game compared to most here. I get 75-80% every time, and I'm happy with that. Improving beyond that will not change things much for me. My beer tastes great BTW at those numbers.
Cheers :icon_chickcheers:

 

[speedie]

I used an analogy with brewers t - shirt colors similar to mhb s car fuel consumption figures ie one will utilize the process to maximize the return the other is your leadfoot running heavy on the extraction losses and it seems in dont understand what I was talking about according to mhb

Most of the world class breweries manage at best 97% recovery from a possible 75-80% conversion from grain

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one



Most of you readers are experiencing the same figures of around 70 plus % from rudimentary equipment which is to be appreciated we dont have vibrating pods in the mash tun to minimize or shake out oxygen nor six roller mills wet or dry, trub recycling lauter tuns etc etc



But if we use the numbers gathered from subsequent brewing sessions then these numbers are the building block for formulation of grain bills



As others have said without discussion where do you look for answers?

Cheers speedie

 

[bum]

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one

Hasn't it already been explained that this 100% you're talking about is a standard and not an actual representation of the maximum sugaz present in a given grain?

Yes it has.

What is your point? Your point is that you're right and it doesn't matter what anyone else ever says? Yeah, we get that. No analogy required.

 

[felten]

Maybe English isn't his first language, I think something was lost in translation.

 

[Thirsty Boy]

Most of the world class breweries manage at best 97% recovery from a possible 75-80% conversion from grain

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one

You are plainly and simply incorrect.

It doesn't get any simpler than that folks... Speedie is wrong. He is either incapable or unwilling to have the facts of the situation explained to him, and I have no intention of making a further attempt.

But for other people out there, who may have been following the reasoning with more success, be in no doubt - He is wrong and you should in no way let his opinion in this matter influence the way you think about this stuff.

We were warned I guess.... It took a couple of posts for it to sink in properly, but it finally has. I'm done.

 

[goomboogo]

The concept being discussed is not complicated. It has been discussed many times before in many different places. TB and MHB have given some good background and information as well as clear and concise explanations of both the process and the reasoning behind the process. I reiterate, it's not that complicated. I'm thick and even I understand it. To those who have attempted to edify in this thread, rest assured that your explanations were excellent. The failure of a particular individual to understand in this situation is a reflection on the particular individual only.

 

[pk.sax]

speedie, I'll build on your own analogy here.

Let say a car manufacturer says that you can convert 50% of the energy stored in petrol hydrocarbons into mechanical energy in your car engine. This represents the theoretical 100% achievable conversion.

Depending on your driving style, you might convert only 80% of that possible 50% (shame on you leadfoot).

Now, a mate comes along and says you should get your engine tuned. While you are at it, you have a spoiler fixed and a new air intake and turbocharger fitted as well. Seeing how much money you spent on the car, you buy yourselves some advanced driving lessons. You made changes to both your equipment and process here. Turns out that now your engine can convert 60% of the stored hydrocarbon energy if you drive exactly like they do in the test lab. Your driving lessons helped and you are now convereting 90% of the car's new capability.

So, to summarize,

before changes, total energy converted = 0.8 X 0.5 = 40% of the energy stored in the fuel, this is 80% of the maximum energy obtainable specified by the manufacturer.

after changes, total energy converted = 0.9 X 0.6 = 54% of the energy stored in the fuel, this is 108% of the original maximum energy obtainable specified by the manufacturer.

If you followed this, you might have noticed that the manufacturer did testing and specified performance using criteria that might OR might not apply to you. YOUR choice of how to handle said equipment made all the difference. Just because you chose to operate your car in a way that is more efficient than what the manufacturer specified does not make you magical, its just that the manufacturer is selling something at a rating HE thinks is the right benchmark.

There are road bridges in this world that had stamped expiry dates 100s of years ago, by rights they should not be standing anymore. And yet, they are. And there are those that don't stand long enough for the tar to dry.

Oh wait, I made two analogies! Hopefully not too confusing. Let me know if it was and I'll split the post up so that it is only as effective as the one analogy per post standard should ALLOW it to be, can't get better than the standard you know, dire sin.

 

[Silo Ted]

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one

What's wrong with your comprehension of this subject, its been explained in several forms already. To put it simply for you (again), a congress mash isn't the maximum yield potential, it's a figure representing a standard of measurement upon which brewers measure their own efficiencies.

As others have said without discussion where do you look for answers?

Reading this thread properly would be a start. Guys here have told you that they have achieved >%100% and you continue to argue that it's incorrect.

 

[DJR]

Most of the world class breweries manage at best 97% recovery from a possible 75-80% conversion from grain

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one

I don't know why i'm doing this but you are obviously in need of a practical example (pragmatists are funny)

Let's say a congress mash got out 80% of the dry weight of grain into solution, therefore the bar was set as the "maximum brewhouse yield" by most regimes - 80% is the "target" corresponding to a yield of 100%.

Now let's say our theoretical brewhouse with a mash filter and hammer mill, let's call them Schloopers, get 82.5% of the dry weight of the grain into solution, due to the pressure effect of the mash filter, the (hypothetically) finer crush, water adjustments including calcium adjustments, and whatever else they want to employ (let's say they borrow a mate's tricks and add some beta-glucanase into their mash and help get some more of the sugars out) over and above a standard lab congress mash.

Now our 82.5% is a bit more than the "theoretical max" of 80%, about 103% in our example.

That's it.

 

[Ronin]

If you look at what your efficiency is into kettle, at end of boil and into fermenter, you will pretty quickly identify where you could maybe make some improvements.

Yep I found the same thing.

I was getting 90% efficiency out of the mash tun, but I had 65-70% brewhouse efficiency. Reducing the deadspace of the kettle with a pickup tube bumped my brewhouse efficiency up to 80% which I hit pretty consistently. Just by reducing wastage.

James

 

[earle]

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one

Just so you know why you're worng - a percentage is simply a way of expressing a fraction of 100. There is no mathematical rule that says that the numerator cannot be greater than the denominator giving a percentage larger than 100.

 

[Ronin]

Having said that mathematically it is not possible to get past the whole, entire, 100%,one

I was struggling with this concept too during the first unit of the brewing course at Ballarat University, untill the lecturer helped me figure it out.

Say you do a congress mash (which is a standard grain crush then laboratory mash) and get 100g/L sugar extracted. That is your set point for 100% efficiency, when compared to a congress mash.

A brewery running a mash tun setup performs their mash (coarser grind because a mash tun requires it), and gets 90g/L sugar extracted. Their mash tun efficiency is therefore 90% (compared to a congress mash)

A second brewery running a high pressure mash filter and hammer mill crushes their grain finer than the brewery using the mash tun, even finer than the laboratory does for the congress mash. So because of the finer grind and the mash filter they manage 110g/L extract. That's 110% extract compared to a congress mash.

The point is the congress mash does not indicate the absolute total amount of extractable sugars from the grain, it is just a standard by which everyone can compare. If you performed biochemical analysis on the malt for the congress mash to determine the total amount of potential extractable sugars, it might come back as 130g/L or 140g/L (actually starch because it hasn't been hydrolysed, but that's just complicating things).

At the risk of confusing the issue (ignore this if it does). Say a congress mash might extract 80% of the malt's weight in sugar, so:

From 1kg of malt, congress mash gives 800grams of extract

In the brewery you get 80% efficiency compared to the congress mash:

80% of the above 800grams = 640 grams from 1 kg malt

Another brewery might get 110% compared to the congress mash:

110% of the above 800grams = 880 grams from 1 kg malt

Notice both are below the 1kg of malt that was added.

So yes in brewing it is possible to get greater than 100% extract when compared to a congress mash. And the important part is when compared to a congress mash.

Of course it's nonsense to say you can put in 1 kg of malt and get back 1.1kg of extract. Nobody is saying that.

James

 

[drew9242]

Well explained James, thanks for the input.

 

[beerbrewer76543]

So yes in brewing it is possible to get greater than 100% extract when compared to a congress mash. And the important part is when compared to a congress mash.

Of course it's nonsense to say you can put in 1 kg of malt and get back 1.1kg of extract. Nobody is saying that.

James

WIN

 

[bum]

I don't know why i'm doing this but you are obviously in need of a practical example (pragmatists are funny)

The funny thing is that he's pretty well read on the science of brewing and does have a broad knowledge but he seems to read these texts the same way he reads other peoples' posts and just picks out the bits he wants, defends them as eternal truths and says "la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" to the rest.

Quick potted history of speedie for anyone interested: single vessel BIAB is not possible; 3V brewing is stupid (direct fired mash then transfer to lauter tun is the ONLY way to brew); stepping up the yeast from a single bottle of imported beer to a 22L starter (yes, you read correctly) is better than using wyeast because you save $3 on a 220L batch; brew length is the same thing as a sports car in the west; there's no point in having a brew in primary for a second longer than fermentation takes - the alcohol is already made. This is the tip of the iceberg and all these issues have generated similar "discussions" as the one in this thread. I'm sure he can brew a beer but he is pig-ignorant and completely close-minded to the idea that there is anything left for him to learn about brewing - he's only here to educate us.

 

[Ronin]

Lol I didn't realise how long that post would end up. :unsure:

To summarise, because the congress mash itself isn't 100% efficient, it is possible to beat it.

@bum. Doesn't always matter how well read you are if you don't understand what you are reading and if we aren't discussing the same efficiency

Especially because the texts don't all use the same benchmark for efficiency, as TB said earlier. If you read Kunze's "Technology Breiwng and Malting", he compares the total extract to the amount of grain added, in which case it would be impossible to get >100%. If you read Briggs' "Brewing, Science and Practice", he compares the total extract to a congress mash, in which case you can get >100%. Took a while (and TB's above post) for me to get that.

James

 

[speedie]

could wolfgang kunzes be german
and think german

 

[Florian]

could wolfgang kunzes be german
and think german

That's it.

 

[hirns]

"la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening