Braumeister NEXTGEN Build

[angus_grant]

So go to this page: http://www.metalmesh.com.au/stainless-steel-mesh

Then click on the Hollander Weave woven wire. I don't know what they mean by the nominal filter rating in the pdf document but that is listed for finer filtering of liquids.

Quote from website: "Hollander weave is used for fine filtration of liquid products. Filter leaves can also be remeshed in any mesh"

 

[matho]

the modified top filter plate worked a treat, didn't move

cheers steve

 

[seamad]

Dont think anything could bend that plate , congrats. You must be pretty happy with it now. Interesting to see the number of these around and the differing approaches made.
Cheers
sean

 

[matho]

yeah I'm really happy with how its working now, I have got used to brewing on it and have it well sorted. I just brewed an APA and it took about 3 1/2 hrs from start to yeast pitched and braumiser cleaned up.
It's cool seeing all the different style units being made, there is always more than one way to skin a cat

cheers steve

 

[matho]

everytime I brew on the braumiser I'm amazed at the clarity of the wort after it has been mashing for an hour



its such an easy system to brew on.

cheers steve

 

[notung]

Hi all. I've been really interested in the filter plate discussions here lately. There are lots of ideas and I love how people are striving to design/build the simplest, least expensive filtering plates they can (including maybe making it just a single piece of stainless). The image of wort projecting all over matho's kitchen has been quite thought-provoking it seems...

I have been wondering if one could even skip the bottom filter plates in the malt pipe. I am thinking about using ArnieW's idea, sealing a malt pipe to the pump outlet at the base of the kettle using camlocks (arms removed). To avoid channelling issues within the malt pipe as the wort is pumped up through the grain, maybe you could hook a copper manifold up to the bulkhead at the bottom. With some slots made in the manifold towards the bottom of the malt pipe, the water/wort would be distributed evenly in the vessel and flood up through the grain to be filtered at the top. I'm thinking a system like that could deliver reasonable efficiency and be pretty easy to clean up. Maybe those bottom filter plates aren't strictly needed.

Shoot me down if I'm wrong or have missed something. What do you think?

 

[angus_grant]

I had a look at the camlock system and eventually decided against it, it was a close decision though. I can always add cam-locks to the system because the malt pipe (Big W pot) is the cheap part of the system and I can buy another one for $20 and trial a cam-lock system.

Here's quick thoughts on why not: http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...st&p=912609

 

[roller997]

Notung,
I would think that the bottom filter plates are quite useful if you want to get the remaining liquid out of your malt pipe as you lift that up without grains getting into your wort?


While there are two trains of thought, I prefer the idea filling the malt pipe from the bottom. It is a neat looking solution and I suspect with the idea below, it might be more cost effective and possibly simpler than feeding the wort through the top of the malt pipe.

An option to seal the malt pipe I have been thinking about is to use a 50 liter keg inside a 98 liter pot.

The idea would be to just simply have a hole in the centre and to use a hollow silicone bung to get the wort to be pumped into the bottom of the keg. A false bottom with possibly a fine filter mesh would be used to disperse the incoming wort through the grain bed. This arrangement should hopefully stop any grains from returning into the kettle once I lift the malt pipe up with some sort of pulley.
At the top I would hope for a 2mm thick false bottom with the possible use of mesh to stop any grains from getting to the kettle side of the setup.

The challenge would be to centre the keg when you insert it, however 3-4 angled sections welded to the bottom of the pot might achieve this but this is one of the aspects I am still looking for ideas.


Cheers

Roller

 

[ArnieW]

I had a look at the camlock system and eventually decided against it, it was a close decision though. I can always add cam-locks to the system because the malt pipe (Big W pot) is the cheap part of the system and I can buy another one for $20 and trial a cam-lock system.

Here's quick thoughts on why not: http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...st&p=912609

I've been thinking about the camlock system and figure there is a way to make it even simpler/cheaper (in the spirit of BrauMiser).

Using one of these skin fittings in the bottom of the kettle, you could presumably just have a piece of open ended pipe (stainless or copper) that slots in from the bottom of the malt pipe. I've not tried it in practice, but think it could work and would be very simple.

 

[angus_grant]

If you mean the open ended pipe is attached to the malt pipe and slots down into the skin fitting: that skin fitting has some very small "posts" (very similar to post-lock kegs) so you could then look at slotting the open-ended pipe as a locking system for the malt pipe.

But probably better off removing the "posts" from the skin fitting and just relying on gravity sealing, much like cam-locks do.

If the malt pipe is elevated above the bottom of the main vessel, then things become a lot simpler with regards to the heating element. You can then have a normal heating element which you would have to slightly offset due to the skin fitting being in the centre of the main vessel, but shouldn't be a big deal. But then no need to a custom bent heating element, and there are plenty of cheaper stainless steel heating elements available.

Hmm, I will have a deeper think about this setup.. I have two of those skin fittings already and will have a play. Nice thinking Arnie!

 

[seamad]

The bottom filter plate is not a problem, in my case anyway, just cut the bottom out of a bigw pot and siliconed it in,allows for good draining and easy to clean. Imo the challenge with these systems is the bottom seal and the top filter plate. The two main choices are a gasket seal for the pot or a bulkhead fitting, both have pluses and minus' . I went the gasket type approach because my concealed element urn seemed to suit that approach better, and i think marginally better effeciency as well.
With the top plate you have the choice of one plate ,or as i have a seperate filter plate and securing top plate. I tried several approaches to just a single fi,ter/plate but was never entirely happy with it as the pressure build up is not to be underestimated...

After much trial and error im pretty happy now, like matho said, its great to watch as that initially cloudy wort become bright and clear, even betterthat you can mash in and leave it do its thing until lifting the pot at mash out.

Cheers
sean

 

[ArnieW]

If you mean the open ended pipe is attached to the malt pipe and slots down into the skin fitting: that skin fitting has some very small "posts" (very similar to post-lock kegs) so you could then look at slotting the open-ended pipe as a locking system for the malt pipe.

But probably better off removing the "posts" from the skin fitting and just relying on gravity sealing, much like cam-locks do.

If the malt pipe is elevated above the bottom of the main vessel, then things become a lot simpler with regards to the heating element. You can then have a normal heating element which you would have to slightly offset due to the skin fitting being in the centre of the main vessel, but shouldn't be a big deal. But then no need to a custom bent heating element, and there are plenty of cheaper stainless steel heating elements available.

Hmm, I will have a deeper think about this setup.. I have two of those skin fittings already and will have a play. Nice thinking Arnie!

I think one possible issue to consider is flow rate, but if a little brown pump cannot deal with the small size of pipe inside a skin fitting, I'm sure larger skin fittings are available too.

In my case I've got a March pump and I need to restrict flow to balance the system.

 

[angus_grant]

I think one possible issue to consider is flow rate, but if a little brown pump cannot deal with the small size of pipe inside a skin fitting, I'm sure larger skin fittings are available too.

In my case I've got a March pump and I need to restrict flow to balance the system.

Once you lift the malt pipe off the base of the main vessel then skin size becomes somewhat irrelevant. My current design restricts the size of the skin fitting due to the malt pipe sealing to the base and only allowing certain area between malt pipe and main vessel for the fitting to fit. Matho had to grind one of his down a bit to fit in that space.

Whitworths have 3/4", 1", and 1&1/2" fittings so there are larger choices available. Can always go larger size after initial design if flow rate is not good enough.

 

[hosko11]

Given the current topic of discussion around filter plates, does anyone have any insight or ideas why the Braumiester has a floating top filter plate? By floating I mean it can move up and down the centre rod.

What would the benefits be for this? The only thing I can think of is it may provide a nice even and slightly compacted grain bed if you wanted to chase those last few points with a batch sparge after lifting the pipe.

I've been pondering this for sometime and it seems a lot of the current builds are going with a fixed plate at the top of the malt pipe as it's easier to implement. I have 12" SS discs (3mm) to use for filter plates, but the pot (to be used as the malt pipe) has an ID of 300mm, so would need to grind the plate diameter down by about 5mm to make it floating.

So it's come down to effort vs reward. What would be gained by making it floating vs fixed??

 

[seamad]

Can't see any advantage to floating. Also floating would only work on a cylinder, a pot has a small amount of flare and also the lid lip , both of which make a good seal unlikely.

 

[Edak]

Looking good there Steve, nice and clear.

Unfortunately I didn't get to the element place on the weekend due to a big Friday night and having to drive friends to get their cars in the morning over the other side of town. Oh well, perhaps next weekend.

I should get all of the rest of my SS fabrication done in a fortnight, so hopefully I can deal with the solid plates by then.

 

[notung]

Notung,
I would think that the bottom filter plates are quite useful if you want to get the remaining liquid out of your malt pipe as you lift that up without grains getting into your wort?

Yes indeed, that's a good point. Thanks roller.

I've been thinking about the camlock system and figure there is a way to make it even simpler/cheaper (in the spirit of BrauMiser).

Using one of these skin fittings in the bottom of the kettle, you could presumably just have a piece of open ended pipe (stainless or copper) that slots in from the bottom of the malt pipe. I've not tried it in practice, but think it could work and would be very simple.

That's quite a simple idea, you're right, but great! It sounds like a nice way to secure the malt pipe in place within the kettle too. I could be thinking about putting this connection between malt pipe and kettle (skin fitting & pipe or camlock system) to one side of the kettle, which in my case will probably be a 30L birko urn. There is a fair bit of wiring for element and controller underneath centre of urn, plus it might be prudent to keep the electronics towards the front underside of my system and wall off the back underside section for plumbing/pump, etc. I figure that slotting the malt pipe in even off centre should work as long as there is help and support from some lugs at the top of the malt pipe (to hold it steady within kettle).

Whitworths have 3/4", 1", and 1&1/2" fittings so there are larger choices available. Can always go larger size after initial design if flow rate is not good enough.

I am starting to like this idea more and more. Thanks for that.

 

[Malted]

I want to keep the plates at 2mm thick so the holes would need to be 3mm - which to my mind would let cracked grains through and thus require a mesh screen too. For me the thickness of the plate is more important than the hole size.

I will measure up my 50L Braumeister plates and report back in a day or so.

How about that! It is certainly more than 'a day or so' but I canfirm the genuine BM filter plates appear to be 2mm thick with 3mm holes!

 

[AlexL]

A question to those using a central threaded rod to hold your malt pipe in place.

Have you found a good way to reduce the amount of grain that gets flushed out the malt pipe when you lift it? I have found, especially with a smaller grain bill, that I can end up with a fair amount of grain in the wort.

Alex

 

[dmac80]

A question to those using a central threaded rod to hold your malt pipe in place.

Have you found a good way to reduce the amount of grain that gets flushed out the malt pipe when you lift it? I have found, especially with a smaller grain bill, that I can end up with a fair amount of grain in the wort.

Alex

I don't have too much of a problem with it Alex, get a little in there, but not heaps. I made sure i welded a snug fitting bit of tube to go in the centre of my lower mash screen to keep it square and allow it to still run up and down the rod. If it gets crooked in the malt pipe you'll lose grain for sure. That and the lower screen is a nice fit in the malt pipe also.

Cheers
Dan