Braumeister style V's 1V Recirculated from above?

[Cervantes]

Hi,

I'm already a 20L BM owner, but am going to have a crack at building my own 1V recirculating system using Lael's controller once it's finished.

I think that I've exhausted the search function in my quest for this information so am starting a new thread.

What are the pro's and cons as you see them of the BM style malt pipe that recirculates from the bottom up and the QldKev style that recirculates from the top down?

I'm not interested in the controller side of things here, just the practicalities and efficiencies of the two different styles.

As far as I can see the recycle from above approach is less work to operate as there is no requirement to screw down the malt pipe to get a seal or to remove the clamp and top plate to give the mash a stir.

But then I can't imagine that Speidel went with a "flow up" design without good reason.

I'm very interested to hear everyone else's thoughts and experience before I start planning my build.

Many thanks

 

[MastersBrewery]

well the other system to look at would be Blichmann's breweasy, it returns at the top using their sparge float valve, avoiding the problem of over flowing the malt chamber/pipe they claim efficiencies of 65-70, but note that is no sparge. Jono's singe vessel (digitale) I think was getting low 70's (pre sparge) I know one member got one and was happy with not sparging and obviously really happy with the build quality.

MB

 

[RobB]

And then there's the Grainfather, which sounds similar to what you are considering.

http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/82035-the-grainfather/

 

[MastersBrewery]

And then there's the Grainfather, which sounds similar to what you are considering.

http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/82035-the-grainfather/

This would be the smaller of the options mentioned so far and cheapest

 

[aamcle]

If your recirculating from the top all you have is a BIAB system. You may have replaced the bag with a pipe/basket but its still the same.

Flow rates through the grain bed will be very low, the wort will follow least resistance and overflow the pipe.

There just isn't enough head pressure to persuade the wort to work its way through the grain bed. Which is probably why the GF needs a top filter, it stops the grain being washed into the outer vessel.

Expensive for BIAB system.

Atb. Aamcle

 

[xredwood]

I built a bottom up system using cam lock fittings to seal the malt pipe. Don't concern yourself too much about having to screw or clamp down the malt pipe, you have to remember that there will be a lot of grain and water/wort in the malt pipe and not much outside it. The weight alone will keep a good seal.

That being said I'm now redesigning and building a brew easy type set up using a Blichmann autosparge. The braumeister clone gets frustrating with trying to seal the top filter so grain doesn't come out, filter screens clogging, etc, and it's fairly messy/difficult to lift the malt pipe out. I'm looking forward to just being able to take the top pot away and dealing with it later! I'm going to give it a crack and see what I prefer and probably eventually go to a 3V system.

 

[aamcle]

If your interested in a brew easy here is a link to the system its derived from :-

https://byo.com/stories/item/1933-countertop-brewing-system

I built one and even though I went for a SS system when the cool box (£3 at car boot sale) gave up I still miss it.

atb aamcle

 

[RelaxedBrewer]

I am in a similar position to you OP, researching design for a single 1V automated BIAB system.
I too have been stuck trying to find out how much of an advantage the Braumeister style malt pipe+return to the bottom gives you as well.

I do know, return to the top systems can have the problem of compacting the grain bed and channeling. The design of the return system and flow rate is important with this.
It seems that the most important point is making sure that the re-circulation is passing through the whole grain bed. The flow is always going to take the path of least resistance and you need to avoid creating channels. Proper design of the manifold and return arm seem to be able to minimise these problems.

It seems the Braumeister systems malt pipe + return to the bottom also eliminates these problems. You also have a simple recirculation setup without the need for a return arm.

I my opinion the Brau system looks nice and works well but can introduce some restrictions such as amount for grain. It is also more costly and harder to implement.
At the moment I am leaning to a electric BIAB setup with false bottom and return to the top re-circulation… but I am still undecided. Maybe someone will point out some more advantages that the Brau system has and I will change my mind.

 

[sponge]

After having a bit of a think about my options, I decided on the standard mash 'top-return' method, rather than the BM 'bottom-return' method.

I see a couple of advantages being that it makes the design simpler (not having to seal the MP in place, not having to have a top filter, the mash doesn't need to set again when sparging as it will fall to the bottom of the MP once lifted) and (not sure on the validity of this comment..) does having a top-return allow for smaller batches? I was just thinking that because you don't actually need to completely fill the MP, as long as the wort level in the kettle is above the elements, you could get away with having a smaller batch in the same size MP.

The disadvantages of the top-return are the normal ones associated with a standard mash (channeling, stuck mash, etc). I noticed that a few people in other threads have suggested 'bottom-return' mashes are advantageous which is why BM went that way, but have not found any evidence to support this.

I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on any of my above comments though..

 

[MastersBrewery]

With the malt pipe inside the main pot whether top or bottom return, you are losing less heat obviously, I think this is the main advantage over brew easy, and other separate vessel systems. Bottom up means fluid is being forced through the grain bed, anecdotally getting slightly higher efficiencies. Stuck sparges/recirc can happen on either system and is usually caused by not allowing the grain to rest and soak up water at mash in, or starting recirc to fast, or too thick a mash, or a combo of all three.

My 35c

MB

(I know these comments are getting expensive I blame current economic circumstances)

 

[Cervantes]

Thanks for all of the responses.

I've looked at the Blichman Breweasy/Brutus 20 style of brewery, but really wanted something simpler.

I do like the look of the Grainfather. Would be easy to clone and fitted with a decent programmable controller could be better than the BM as it allows much more choice when it comes to size of grain bill used. The telescopic central drain is the key to this.

With the Grainfather the top filter plate doesn't appear to be there to retain the grain, but more to act as a baffle and ensure an even distribution of the recirculated wort through the malt.

I know that I can get very good mash efficiencies from the BM especially if I extend the mash times and stir the mash a few times. But would be prepared to sacrifice a few points for the simpler build and ease of use of a top recirculation system.

Does anyone have any mash efficiency figures for a top recycle system.

 

[QldKev]

Hi,

I'm already a 20L BM owner, but am going to have a crack at building my own 1V recirculating system using Lael's controller once it's finished.

I think that I've exhausted the search function in my quest for this information so am starting a new thread.

What are the pro's and cons as you see them of the BM style malt pipe that recirculates from the bottom up and the QldKev style that recirculates from the top down?

I'm not interested in the controller side of things here, just the practicalities and efficiencies of the two different styles.

As far as I can see the recycle from above approach is less work to operate as there is no requirement to screw down the malt pipe to get a seal or to remove the clamp and top plate to give the mash a stir.

But then I can't imagine that Speidel went with a "flow up" design without good reason.

I'm very interested to hear everyone else's thoughts and experience before I start planning my build.

Many thanks

I went with the top-down flow as it was an easier system to setup with less bits to go wrong, basically the KISS approach. I get 85% pre-boil eff using a cold water sparge method. The two main downsides of my system is you do need to be careful not to overflow the pot and much over 5.5kg of grain is starting to push it alot. I've found since I have drilled the extra holes in my pot I can flow it pretty hard without any issue of sticking. 5.5kg grain limitation may or may not be an issue depending on how big of a beer you want, but at 85% pre-boil eff and say a 20L batch using 0.23kg sugar in a Belgium that equates to 8.4%abv

I do like the idea of the reverse flow which in theory would help wash out the sugar better. Also with a concealed malt pipe you cannot overflow the grain into the wort. It just was a bit fiddly for me. If I went that way I would have just purchased a real one.

Pitty you are not closer, you could come over for a brew day and see what you think.

Overall both are great systems, I think a lot comes into the implementation of each.

 

[QldKev]

If your recirculating from the top all you have is a BIAB system. You may have replaced the bag with a pipe/basket but its still the same.

Flow rates through the grain bed will be very low, the wort will follow least resistance and overflow the pipe.

There just isn't enough head pressure to persuade the wort to work its way through the grain bed. Which is probably why the GF needs a top filter, it stops the grain being washed into the outer vessel.

Expensive for BIAB system.

Atb. Aamcle

It's not just another BIAB system, traditional BIAB does not recirculate the wort. I did BIAB for years, then built a recirculating BIAB setup and ran it for a while, I used a pizza tray under the bag to keep it away from the element. It worked great. Having used BIAB for years, then a recirculating BIAB, and now a pot version I refer to as a 1V, I enjoy the pot 1V with a decent controller by a long shot.

Flow rates very low due to insignificant head pressure? Not sure why you assumed that, what have you tried? Have a looked at my latest 1V video for the flow I'm messing around with, it certainly is not slow. I do agree without a top plate you do need to set the flow based on what is happening, in the video after playing with it and stirring up the wort I did need to back it off for a sec until it all settled again, but I was returning it faster than most standard pumps will allow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbPAxWFB65s

 

[RelaxedBrewer]

Is a top return re-circulation system using a pipe instead of a bag with a false bottom in the kettle, beneficial/necessary? What does it achieve?

 

[QldKev]

Is a top return re-circulation system using a pipe instead of a bag with a false bottom in the kettle, beneficial/necessary? What does it achieve?

The bag and pizza tray certainly worked, but I found lifting the bag out and draining it more hassle than the pot. The bag would dribble wort as I lifted it out, and then I needed a way/somewhere to drain it. For the pot I just lift it straight up and sit it into it's position directly above the wort for draining. Then I can sparge while it is in that position and it just keeps draining directly into the wort. Have a look at that video I posted above from about 8min 30secs, normally I would have 2 hands for it but on the video I do it one handed.

 

[Feldon]

Another option would be the Brewha BIAC (Brew-in-a-Concial).

Conical mash tun/kettle/fermentor all in one.

Uses a removable stainless "Mash Colander" with wort return to top.

Vessel is jacketed allowing for heating and cooling of contents.

$US 3.2K.

http://brewha.co/products/biac-package

 

[Cervantes]

I went with the top-down flow as it was an easier system to setup with less bits to go wrong, basically the KISS approach. I get 85% pre-boil eff using a cold water sparge method. The two main downsides of my system is you do need to be careful not to overflow the pot and much over 5.5kg of grain is starting to push it alot. I've found since I have drilled the extra holes in my pot I can flow it pretty hard without any issue of sticking. 5.5kg grain limitation may or may not be an issue depending on how big of a beer you want, but at 85% pre-boil eff and say a 20L batch using 0.23kg sugar in a Belgium that equates to 8.4%abv

I do like the idea of the reverse flow which in theory would help wash out the sugar better. Also with a concealed malt pipe you cannot overflow the grain into the wort. It just was a bit fiddly for me. If I went that way I would have just purchased a real one.

Pitty you are not closer, you could come over for a brew day and see what you think.

Overall both are great systems, I think a lot comes into the implementation of each.

QldKev,

Many thanks for the response. It's your system that has inspired me to attempt my own build.

85% mash efficiency is very good. I'd be happy with that.

How important is the second return at the bottom of the pot to keep the wort flowing around the heating element?

Another option would be the Brewha BIAC (Brew-in-a-Concial).

Conical mash tun/kettle/fermentor all in one.

Uses a removable stainless "Mash Colander" with wort return to top.

Vessel is jacketed allowing for heating and cooling of contents.

$US 3.2K.

http://brewha.co/products/biac-package

Feldon,

Thanks for that, but way beyond my capabilities to clone something like this.

 

[QldKev]

QldKev,

Many thanks for the response. It's your system that has inspired me to attempt my own build.

85% mash efficiency is very good. I'd be happy with that.

How important is the second return at the bottom of the pot to keep the wort flowing around the heating element?

IMHO, if I built the system again I would 100% keep the second return. I've posted some thoughts about it starting here.

 

[Cervantes]

IMHO, if I built the system again I would 100% keep the second return. I've posted some thoughts about it starting here.

Thanks very much for the help. I'll be adding a second return as well.

 

[aamcle]

Kev.

Most impressed, my initial experiments were with a inner pot with a mesh bottom.
I tried 7 mesh (7holes per inch) and twenty mesh the. 7# let a lot of grain matter through and the 20# restricted the flow to a slow trickle.
Neither mesh permitted a flow rate like that in your video, the inner pot just over flowed into the outer vessel.
The level of wort in the outer pot was only 25 to 50mm below the level in the inner pot
One big difference is that I was only returning at the top, I didn't have a return to the bottom.

Do you think that the lack of a bottom return might be the issue?
Is there anything special about your grain crush?

Were is the bottom return positioned relative to the base of the pot?

And of course are there any pictures of the return/outer pot?

I feel some experiments coming on!

Atb. Aamcle