QldKev's New Biab With Internal Rims

[lukencode]

Looking at putting together something similar - does the outer keg work well or is a pot the better option? The only place I've seen them available is the keggle at keg king (not to keen on chopping one up myself).

 

[Beerisyummy]

Looking at putting together something similar - does the outer keg work well or is a pot the better option? The only place I've seen them available is the keggle at keg king (not to keen on chopping one up myself).

I'm sure both options would be just fine depending on the other parts of the setup.
Eg: I use a cheap 50l stainless pot which just fits the BW pot inside it's inner diameter. This allows me to use an induction element to do most of the heavy lifting in my brewery.

If you where to use a 50l keggle with a gas burner, I'm sure it would work just as well. It would probably be cheaper also.
I'm sure Kev can give you more insight into this approach, as only use my 50l keg for fermenting.

 

[sponge]

This thread has just changed (for the better) the design of my 1V system.

I just have a question regarding the pump returns. I'm still not 100% sure why the return at the bottom of the kettle is used whilst the mash is recirculating.. I would've thought that the wort circulating through the mash, out the FB and over the elements back to the pump was enough flow over the elements to not require the return to the main kettle. I can see why having another return for whirlpooling (off say a 2-way valve) would be advantageous, but still not sure as to why both returns are required? Would having an outlet to the pump on either edge of the kettle (so 2 kettle outlets for the single pump on opposite sides of the kettle) 'encourage' more movement across the element as there would be less places for the wort to sit still and possibly scorch?

I am probably missing something very simple here so apologies in advance. I'm really liking the idea of recirculating like a normal mash and not up through the bottom. Makes the build a whole lot simpler not having to 'contain' the mash..

 

[QldKev]

This thread has just changed (for the better) the design of my 1V system.

I just have a question regarding the pump returns. I'm still not 100% sure why the return at the bottom of the kettle is used whilst the mash is recirculating.. I would've thought that the wort circulating through the mash, out the FB and over the elements back to the pump was enough flow over the elements to not require the return to the main kettle. I can see why having another return for whirlpooling (off say a 2-way valve) would be advantageous, but still not sure as to why both returns are required? Would having an outlet to the pump on either edge of the kettle (so 2 kettle outlets for the single pump on opposite sides of the kettle) 'encourage' more movement across the element as there would be less places for the wort to sit still and possibly scorch?

I am probably missing something very simple here so apologies in advance. I'm really liking the idea of recirculating like a normal mash and not up through the bottom. Makes the build a whole lot simpler not having to 'contain' the mash..

It's just a case of wanting a lot more flow from the pump across the element, than I though I could achieve through the grain/false bottom without sucking down the grain bed and getting a stuck mash. The strong flow across the element is really useful at the lower temps of an acid and protein rest, but mainly the acid rest.

Check out this video from about 1min 45sec for the speed of the water under the pot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csTZUDc4WZI&list=UUDInzeelCPde0_pvzMdzhng

 

[sponge]

Yea I had a watch of that video.. answered a lot of questions I had.

It just seems like the mash will be lagging because of the split return. But that's purely a thought and not based on any evidence, whereas you've brewed enough beers on that system to show otherwise. I guess the bottom of the mash will still be sitting in some kettle wort anyways which will help ramp times and whatnot so I might have to look at doing something similar.

 

[QldKev]

Yea I had a watch of that video.. answered a lot of questions I had.

It just seems like the mash will be lagging because of the split return. But that's purely a thought and not based on any evidence, whereas you've brewed enough beers on that system to show otherwise. I guess the bottom of the mash will still be sitting in some kettle wort anyways which will help ramp times and whatnot so I might have to look at doing something similar.

The pump I'm using on this system is the Kaixin mp20, most brewers use the smaller mp15, so it has a very big flow. I'm returning more flow from just the top return than say a little brown pump flows total, so plenty of flow into the mash itself. Although in the video the outside water level looks to be at the bottom of the pot, in the real world it is the same level as the inside. So if the water in the sump area should exceed the mash temperature by much, the mash tun being immersed in it, then it will also conduct heat into the mash through the pot. Real world I find this system has minimal mash temperature lag.

Another way I think of it, allowing a smaller pump for recirculation and only the top return then you would theoretically get the same heating of the mash bed from the same flow through the mash bed. The element would still be immersed in the same volume of wort. You would just loose the extra movement of wort under and around the pot which I don't think actually adds much extra mash heating, it's only there to safe guard the element. That's my theory anyway.

Overall if I built the system from scratch again I would keep the 2 returns. But if you don't want to do the lower temperature steps, especially an acid rest, then the lower return becomes less important.

 

[sponge]

I don't often go below a protein rest TBH (unless I'm bringing the mash up to temp from ambient) but will almost definitely keep the dual return with a valve on each to control the flow.

I think I'll be putting in a 'plumbing drain' as well and have a tee-piece with a camlock and cover at the lowest point of the plumbing so that it's easy to take off the cover, let everything drain through there, give it a quick rinse with a hose and drain, then put the cap back on and get some sodium perc circulating through everything.

Thanks for the help Kev.

 

[QldKev]

Just chucked up some video from a few days ago, it shows the pot etc a lot better.


http://youtu.be/tbPAxWFB65s

 

[RelaxedBrewer]

Is the danger at lower temp rests without the lower return that you risk draining the wort below the grain bed faster than it will flow back through the grain bed and then expose the element?

 

[QldKev]

Is the danger at lower temp rests without the lower return that you risk draining the wort below the grain bed faster than it will flow back through the grain bed and then expose the element?

At lower temperatures there is more shit that is likely to stick to the heating element causing it to burn out.

 

[QldKev]

Quote from http://aussiehomebrewer.com/topic/82038-braumeister-style-vs-1v-recirculated-from-above/?p=1210417
I replied here so I don't take over the other thread.

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

I don't think the bottom return aids in the flow through the inner pot. It is only there to help protect the element.
Crush is my normal crush for my 3V, with my mm2 set to 0.9mm. I don't change it for this system.
The bottom return is from the side, facing the element. It's height is under the pot. In this thread back up somewhere there is a video of matho's controller pt1.



Not the best pic, but this shows the pickup, and lower return.
The pickup is the brass elbow, the return is the stainless elbow. I do want to replace the returns 90 elbow with a 45 degree one. You can see I still get shit on the element, but it cleans off ok. With the flow of water in the bottom it helps stop it from getting too hot and burning it on.

My crush

 

[aamcle]

Thanks Kev.

Looking at your video it seemed as if the wort in the outer pot was much lower than that in the inner pot. Is that correct?

Atb. Aamcle

 

[RelaxedBrewer]

Thanks, for all your help Kev.

I have the Kaixin mp15 and I am worried that it does not have a high enough flow rate for both the top and bottom return.

Where did you get your Kaixin mp20 from? I can't find them anywhere. There are MKII models out now, that are supposed to be able withstand higher temperatures (rated to 110C) but they have the same advertised flow rate (19L/min) as my mp 15.

 

[QldKev]

Thanks Kev.

Looking at your video it seemed as if the wort in the outer pot was much lower than that in the inner pot. Is that correct?

Atb. Aamcle

You can see in the Aug 2014 update video when I lift the pot up for draining the outer level. It was approx 6cm difference. I don't think I could ever achieve it to sit even. The faster I run the flow the higher the difference.

I should add how I get my mash water level as it is very different to any traditional approach. I start with approx 25L strike water, and heat to strike temp. I then add the grain and check the water level with the pump running against my return arm height. Obviously the more grain the higher the water level. I then add cold water to get the end of the return arm just under water. The element/mash recovers from the water temp drop pretty fast.

Thanks, for all your help Kev.

I have the Kaixin mp15 and I am worried that it does not have a high enough flow rate for both the top and bottom return.

Where did you get your Kaixin mp20 from? I can't find them anywhere. There are MKII models out now, that are supposed to be able withstand higher temperatures (rated to 110C) but they have the same advertised flow rate (19L/min) as my mp 15.

I got mine from aliexpress, but it was a lot cheaper than the current prices

I think the mp15 will be ok, if I had one I would just use it and see how you go. It will flow more having two returns as you reduce the line pressure some. Just keep all the hoses etc as short as you can.

 

[aamcle]

Right I think the success of your system is due to the height difference you generate between the inner pot and the outer pot. It creates enough head to get the wort to flow through the grain bed.

I can't emulate that with a 12v Solar Pump


Aamcle

 

[RelaxedBrewer]

You are right about my pump, may as well try if first and see what kind of flow I get going.
In the video it looked like you adjusted the flow rates on your returns via ball valves to get the correct flow rates. Is that how you do it?


Also, what temperature probe are you using and what kind of thermowell? If I remember correctly mathos controller uses the DS18B20 probe.

 

[QldKev]

You are right about my pump, may as well try if first and see what kind of flow I get going.
In the video it looked like you adjusted the flow rates on your returns via ball valves to get the correct flow rates. Is that how you do it?


Also, what temperature probe are you using and what kind of thermowell? If I remember correctly mathos controller uses the DS18B20 probe.

Yep, I have a ball valve on both the top and bottom returns. Normally I leave the bottom one wide open, and adjust the top one. Unless I'm messing with higher flow then I open up the top and slow down the bottom one.

The probe I used is
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/3m-Digital-Thermal-Tank-Sensor-Horizontal-DS18B20-/251319571157?pt=US_Weather_Meters&hash=item3a83d052d5

I cut the wire a few inches from the probe and soldered in an XLR joiner.

 

[jonnir]

Just a question on this one kev.

I was sitting the 19l pot in the keg without cutting the handles off the pot. This way it sits 'on' the pot if you get what I mean. The pot won't be submersed in wort at all. The only thing I can see this affecting is retaining heat in the pot a little bit easier.

Am I correct in thinking this?

In my mind it's just like a continuous sparge at whatever temperature I set the Stc at. Just gotta set the flow and sit the probe in pot.

 

[QldKev]

Just a question on this one kev.

I was sitting the 19l pot in the keg without cutting the handles off the pot. This way it sits 'on' the pot if you get what I mean. The pot won't be submersed in wort at all. The only thing I can see this affecting is retaining heat in the pot a little bit easier.

Am I correct in thinking this?

In my mind it's just like a continuous sparge at whatever temperature I set the Stc at. Just gotta set the flow and sit the probe in pot.

I did think about doing that too, as the extra height difference would mean it would have more forces for the wort to flow through back into the main pot. Not sure if I would like my wort draining and splashing back into the main vessel for an hour. But most people say HSA doesn't exist in a homebrew environment. I don't see the outside of the pot being exposed a huge issue for heat loss, there are plenty of 3V mash tuns that run a HERMS/RIMS and are not insulated. In effect this would not be all that different and the controller would ensure overall the temperature dot not drop. You would need to have a return arm that can be dropped into / attached to the pot, that could be removed for removing the pot. The main downside is you would have to match the speed of the pump to the draining speed accurately. Too fast the pot overflows, too slow and the top of the grain bed would become dry. You could put a tube up the center of the 19L pot as an overflow, the top would be just shy of the outer lip of the pot. So rather than overflowing the pot, the wort can overflow and run down the center tube. I'm not sure if it would be worth using mesh on the top, without mesh you could get grains passing down it, with mesh you risk the grain blocking it and allow the main pot to overflow.

 

[jonnir]

I'll do some research on this hot side aeration but just a quick explanation would be fantastic! Is there flavor issues? I suppose if I can get the height correct it would be similar to how you have yours sitting while your sparging. So that could be a way around the splashing.

Also I don't plan on having a fixed arm. Just some silicone tube sitting in the middle of the pot, similar idea to your arm but will have a fitting on the end of the tube for some weight.

I'm gonna give this way a go and will report back.