Mediocre First Brew Day on the New E-HERMS Rig -- Could use some tips

[ryanj]

Agree with Blazinlow.
I run full bore and never stir the mash. Crush at 05.
Not sure if this pertains to the OP, but one of the often missed items in troubleshooting this problem is your false bottom.
When I first built my system I had a POS bottom that stuck the mash and actually went from convex to concave from the pressure.
Getting a quality false bottom that covered the entire floor surface of my mash tun solved the problem.

I have a typical dome false bottom that completely covers the bottom of my cooler with all 1/2" hardware and tubing. I can't imagine a better flowing solution given my vessel. I'm tempted to try a more coarse crush though to see what my efficiencies look like.

What mash efficiency are you getting at .05? That's pretty coarse.

 

[Blazinlow86]

nah, it won't stick. i do it all of the time. i think you probably either have to condition the malt or add rice hulls though, or it will stick.

Tell that to the op. Clearly it does or he wouldn't have asked....

 

[Blazinlow86]

I have a typical dome false bottom that completely covers the bottom of my cooler with all 1/2" hardware and tubing. I can't imagine a better flowing solution given my vessel. I'm tempted to try a more coarse crush though to see what my efficiencies look like.

What mash efficiency are you getting at .05? That's pretty coarse.

My efficiency is pretty low at 85% but it's consistent which to me is much more important. Cheers

 

[ryanj]

My efficiency is pretty low at 85% but it's consistent which to me is much more important. Cheers

85% mash efficiency is low?!

 

[Blazinlow86]

85% mash efficiency is low?!

85% is decent but I've read of people using the blichman mash tun setup getting up to 95% as it supposedly flows excellent with a tighter gap and no hulls. There so overpriced I couldn't bring myself to paying the premium for the extra effeciency

 

[ryanj]

85% is decent but I've read of people using the blichman mash tun setup getting up to 95% as it supposedly flows excellent with a tighter gap and no hulls. There so overpriced I couldn't bring myself to paying the premium for the extra effeciency

I’m having a hard time considering 85% mash efficiency anything other than superb on any system.

 

[Dcpcooks]

I'm heading toward one of these HERMS systems, reading as much as I can before I start to pull the trigger.

I have a Riptide which I plan to use for this. Full-bore is 7-gallons per minute, so when you say you're running it full-bore, does that mean the valve is wide open and you're circulating 7 gallons per minute?

That seems very fast to me, but I'm a newbie at this HERMS stuff so perhaps I don't understand.

EDITED TO ADD: My understanding, such as it is, was more consistent with what @Smellyglove says above, i.e., the flow rate needs to be tuned to a level which doesn't overly compact the grain bed.

I'd think a high flow rate would suck that grain bed down, making channeling much more likely, and inhibiting flow through parts of the grain bed which would reduce efficiency.

I run a 1/2 bbl herms system. It’s basically the blichmann pilot system that I designed before Blichmann came out with one. I pieced the system together over time and bought used gear where I could. It’s a great system because It doesn’t collapse the grain bed during recirculation and it’s completely repeatable. This system started out as a propane fired herms, then I went electric rims with gas fired kettles and finally an electric herms set up.

Literally the last thing I purchased for the system was the ridiculously priced flow meter from Blichmann. I wanted to know what my flow rate was and it was surprisingly fast. After I hooked it up I left my setting relatively the same on my pumps and started a brew day. Based on my usual valve setting I was pumping over 2.5gpm. It’s a 30 gallon mash tun and I had decent movement of wort and relatively boring brew days. I never really used rice hulls and never had stuck mashes.

Now here is the cool part, once I dialed into 1 gpm I was able to reduce my crush. Then I reduced to .75 gpm and I reduced my crush again. I ended up with a mill setting of .30 and a flow rate of .75gpm and brew house efficiency of 83%. I don’t have issues with a stuck mash, I can scale any recipe to my system and I can actually chill out and have a beer and watch a game of clean stuff without worrying about a stuck mash or channeling.

I suggest the op reduce flow with a valve after the pump and slow things down. It’s kinda counter intuitive because I assumed more flow was better but the reality on my set up is less is more.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I run a 1/2 bbl herms system. It’s basically the blichmann pilot system that I designed before Blichmann came out with one. I pieced the system together over time and bought used gear where I could. It’s a great system because It doesn’t collapse the grain bed during recirculation and it’s completely repeatable. This system started out as a propane fired herms, then I went electric rims with gas fired kettles and finally an electric herms set up.

Literally the last thing I purchased for the system was the ridiculously priced flow meter from Blichmann. I wanted to know what my flow rate was and it was surprisingly fast. After I hooked it up I left my setting relatively the same on my pumps and started a brew day. Based on my usual valve setting I was pumping over 2.5gpm. It’s a 30 gallon mash tun and I had decent movement of wort and relatively boring brew days. I never really used rice hulls and never had stuck mashes.

Now here is the cool part, once I dialed into 1 gpm I was able to reduce my crush. Then I reduced to .75 gpm and I reduced my crush again. I ended up with a mill setting of .30 and a flow rate of .75gpm and brew house efficiency of 83%. I don’t have issues with a stuck mash, I can scale any recipe to my system and I can actually chill out and have a beer and watch a game of clean stuff without worrying about a stuck mash or channeling.

I suggest the op reduce flow with a valve after the pump and slow things down. It’s kinda counter intuitive because I assumed more flow was better but the reality on my set up is less is more.

Yea the blichman false bottom is supposed to be the best. I've only ran about 40 1/2bbl batches on mine since building it but haven't had a issue with a stuck/ slow sparge since the first time. I normally mash in adjust ph and do chores or head out for errands. Cheers

 

[Smellyglove]

From what I understand, the biggest advantage is the ability to have a finer crush without obliterating the husk.

You are getting tonnes of replies and opinions. which is expected and good.

I'd say go with the same crush (if that's the crush which is normal for you), and focus on the valve which dials back down the flow, for the next one. Gap here and there, this and that. Use whatever you're getting (unless its totaly rubbish) and dial in you system to that, then do small adjustments to find your limit. Change one parameter at a time.

This way you'll also learn more. You'll be able to say good or bad if you come across a situation where you need to make call on it.

Experiment, systematically. Find your own workflow. Zen, peace of mind. Take it for what it is after a batch, and adjust next time.

 

[jcav]

Thought I'd throw this in the mix. I have a Kal clone built with Sabco Kegs. I crush to a gap of 0.045 and I run the mill slow, up to 8 revolutions per second on the drill or less. Doesn't take that long at all at this speed but longer than letting it rip. I always use rice hulls on my 11 gallon batches, and I use more rice hulls for wheat beers. They not only help with a stuck sparge with the wheat beers, but I use them in my other beers as well, since they help regulate the temperature throughout the whole mash tun while mashing. So that is why I use them. I also always run the pumps (March pumps with Chugger stainless center inlet heads) wide open and I do not restrict them. This is what works for me on my system very well and I think everyone has to dial in their system, as what works well for me might not work well for mashing in a cooler. If you are experiencing channeling you may want to put a silicone ring around the outer edge of your false bottom, as this may help with side wall shunting.

John

 

[doug293cz]

I’m having a hard time considering 85% mash efficiency anything other than superb on any system.

With a fly sparge, excellent mash efficiency is beating the solid green line on the chart below by 2 or 3 percentage points. I've seen data from fly spargers who are able to achieve that. Note that to get that kind of mash efficiency you need to get essentially 100% conversion efficiency.

Brew on

 

[doug293cz]

With a .035 gap and wheat in the grist your pretty much guaranteed a stuck mash/sparge. Try your next one at .050 and mill slowly. If your using wheat additionally use rice hulls. You will probably still not be able to run full speed but as long as your temp remains stable that doesn't really matter. You get best heat transfer at full speed so eventually if possible that would be the end goal. As I posted earlier I do all the above and run full speed right from the start everytime but only after going to a jaybird full size false bottom

Anyone have any good pics of what wheat crushed with a 0.050" gap looks like?

Brew on

 

[Smellyglove]

Anyone have any good pics of what wheat crushed with a 0.050" gap looks like?

Brew on

1.27mm is a wide gap for wheat. Lage kernels, I assume. But it doesn't matter that much, as long as you mash long enough.

 

[doug293cz]

1.27mm is a wide gap for wheat. Lage kernels, I assume. But it doesn't matter that much, as long as you mash long enough.

Any uncracked wheat kernels are going to take a very long time to convert, may not be any enzymes left by then.

Brew on

 

[ryanj]

I suggest the op reduce flow with a valve after the pump and slow things down. It’s kinda counter intuitive because I assumed more flow was better but the reality on my set up is less is more.

It is definitely counter intuitive! I’m so glad I posted about this because after all the reading I did, I just assumed “more flow = better”, but thinking about all of the variables involved...this really makes sense.

I’ll dial my pump way back and watch the MT output hose to make sure it’s keeping up. During this first batch I noticed a lot of air in the line...which makes sense since it wasn’t draining as fast as the pump was pumping.

Good looking out. Can’t wait for my next batch!

 

[Blazinlow86]

Anyone have any good pics of what wheat crushed with a 0.050" gap looks like?

Brew on

That's the only one I have. Unfortunately it's my phone camera and with the wheat so small afterwards you can't even see it. That was unconditioned at .050 and 23% wheat 5% Munich and 72% Pilsner. Cheers

 

[Blazinlow86]

It is definitely counter intuitive! I’m so glad I posted about this because after all the reading I did, I just assumed “more flow = better”, but thinking about all of the variables involved...this really makes sense.

I’ll dial my pump way back and watch the MT output hose to make sure it’s keeping up. During this first batch I noticed a lot of air in the line...which makes sense since it wasn’t draining as fast as the pump was pumping.

Good looking out. Can’t wait for my next batch!

i still personally think your better off crushing looser and pumping faster than the other way around. cranking your pump WAY back kinda defeats the purpose of recirculation imho. after a few runs you can mill tighter until you see your flow slowing and your pretty much set. cheers

 

[doug293cz]

That's the only one I have. Unfortunately it's my phone camera and with the wheat so small afterwards you can't even see it. That was unconditioned at .050 and 23% wheat 5% Munich and 72% Pilsner. CheersView attachment 572723

Thanks for replying, but I was really looking for an in focus, close up of a wheat only crush. Can't really tell anything from that pic.

Brew on

 

[Blazinlow86]

I've never tried it personally but wheat ONLY wouldn't even crush at that setting I imagine .I've only done partial wheat grists and run it all together so the wheat kernels still get broken up

 

[doug293cz]

I've never tried it personally but wheat ONLY wouldn't even crush at that setting I imagine .I've only done partial wheat grists and run it all together so the wheat kernels still get broken up

That would actually make an interesting comparison: a 50-50 wheat-barley vs. wheat only at 0.050 gap.

Brew on

 

[Blazinlow86]

That would actually make an interesting comparison: a 50-50 wheat-barley vs. wheat only at 0.050 gap.

Brew on

I'll give it a try after dinner

 

[Blazinlow86]

So the 1st 2 pics is half Pilsner and half wheat and the 2 pics on the bottom is pure wheat. Surprisingly the wheat crushed alot at the .050 setting. I was expecting it to just fall thru. fwiw i did not condition these but normally would .Cheers

 

[doug293cz]

Thanks for doing this. The crush is better than I thought it would be. I'm seeing a few uncrushed wheat grains in the mix, and a higher level of uncrushed in the pure wheat. So, there are likely to be some almost unconvertible grains, but not a huge fraction. I think I might try to find a suitable screen and do some quantitative testing.

Brew on

 

[Bobby_M]

If you mill your own grain, consider conditioning the grain first. If not, use rice hulls.

Recirc only needs to be about 1qt per minute.

Yes the locline is significantly better than the silicone hose method. I guarantee it. No you dont need the nozzle ring.

 

[ryanj]

If you mill your own grain, consider conditioning the grain first. If not, use rice hulls.

Recirc only needs to be about 1qt per minute.

Yes the locline is significantly better than the silicone hose method. I guarantee it. No you dont need the nozzle ring.

That's another vote for slow recirculation. I think I'll keep conditioning my grain (like I always do) and milling to .035 and try a much slower recirc (and see how that goes). Small changes with each batch will help me know if I'm moving in the right direction or not.

@Bobby_M Is locline really only rated to 170F? I mash out at about 168-170 so it's cutting it a bit close. Obviously it's probably fine, but any thoughts on that temp rating?

 

[stickyfinger]

Tell that to the op. Clearly it does or he wouldn't have asked....

true. i should have said that it is possible to mill fine and not jam up the mash. it just requires conditioning or rice hulls and not flowing too fast.

 

[stickyfinger]

I’m having a hard time considering 85% mash efficiency anything other than superb on any system.

We should be clear about what we mean when we say "mash efficiency." I usually refer the efficiencies as "conversion efficiency", "lauter efficiency", and "overall efficiency/system efficiency". The first is a measure of how well you are converting the starches in the grains into sugars, the second is how well you are extracting the sugars from the mash and the third is simply the product of the two efficiencies for a total measure of the conversion and lautering efficiency. I think the latter is what most refer to when they say "mash efficiency." I am usually at 90-95% conversion efficiency and then depending on the OG of the beer, I am usually in the 75-85% overall efficiency/"mash efficiency" range.

The 95% numbers for mash efficiency are almost certainly the result of using an unrealistically low value for the extract potential of the malt. 85% for an overall efficiency seems great to me. 85% for a conversion efficiency has room for improvement.

If you are interested in calculating the conversion efficiency and don't already do it or don't know how to do it, check out braukaiser's excellent writeup:

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Understanding_Efficiency#Conversion_efficiency

 

[stickyfinger]

Yea the blichman false bottom is supposed to be the best. I've only ran about 40 1/2bbl batches on mine since building it but haven't had a issue with a stuck/ slow sparge since the first time. I normally mash in adjust ph and do chores or head out for errands. Cheers

From what I have seen and experienced on a friend's and my setup, the Spike Brewing false bottom is as good as the blichmann. The Spike kettle's also have the "stepped" bottom and a very small dead space. I love my Spike MLT! I've read that the slits in the blichmann are superior to the holes of the Spike, but I don't know if there is really any difference in performance, maybe. The Spike is the bomb though!

 

[SEndorf]

Looking through some past several beers, Beersmith reports my mash efficiency between 76% and 106%.
Frankly, I've never paid much attention to it. Focusing on Brewhouse efficiency as a constant (in my case 78%) takes into account all losses from my system, so dialing that in gives me consistent and accurate target numbers.

 

[stickyfinger]

Looking through some past several beers, Beersmith reports my mash efficiency between 76% and 106%.
Frankly, I've never paid much attention to it. Focusing on Brewhouse efficiency as a constant (in my case 78%) takes into account all losses from my system, so dialing that in gives me consistent and accurate target numbers.

your brewhouse efficiency is always 78%, regardless of OG and amount of hops used, etc. (assuming you are referring to brewhouse efficiency as the efficiency all the way through to the fermenter.)? That seems really weird to me. A hoppy barleywine would have a much lower lauter, overall, brewhouse, whatever for me than a hopless light lager (actually, the conversion efficiency could be as good or better but that is the only one.)

 

[MX1]

@ryanj

Not sure if it has been said, but when you start changing your process, change one thing at a time, and ride that change over a few brew sessions, you need to get a good shot group of what the change did and how your system reacts. It is a slow process, but the payoff is priceless once you dial in. Take the best notes of your life. record everything!

i had a 3 vessel, eHERMS built around 15gallon pots, with PID controls. It took me almost 2 years to get her humming the way I wanted. Then it took a lot of brews to figure out how each specific beer reacted to the system. It is work, but in all cases it should be a labor of love.

Make a list of things suggested to you in this thread as ways to improve your process. Figure out what seems most important to change, what is easiest to change, and what changes will be harder/cost more to implement, and then make a list of those changes ordered to what you feel is the best way to go about it.

I brewed a lot of simple beers for almost 3 years, 2 or 3 base malts, basic mash schedule, and simple hop additions....but keeping things simple and consistent was. for me, the key to learning basic brewing processes, learning brewing processes on my system, learning malt and hop profiles, and learning how my system reacted to brewing variables such as a large infusion of wheat or corn in the grist.

Take your time and enjoy the ride and education....

just my 2 cents, hope it helps

MX1

 

[SEndorf]

your brewhouse efficiency is always 78%, regardless of OG and amount of hops used, etc. (assuming you are referring to brewhouse efficiency as the efficiency all the way through to the fermenter.)? That seems really weird to me. A hoppy barleywine would have a much lower lauter, overall, brewhouse, whatever for me than a hopless light lager (actually, the conversion efficiency could be as good or better but that is the only one.)

Sorry... typed to fast and wasn't clear.
Brewhouse efficiency is the only "efficiency" in Beersmith that is inputted. Several batches and measurement losses to kettle, trub, hoses, etc. has determined (for my system) BE is entered at 78%.
This has consistently brought me to target numbers regardless of beer style, heavy or light.
For that reason (and I may be the outlier here) I really don't pay much attention to measured BE or ME as it varies depending on what you're brewing and therefore doesn't provide me any meaningful data.

 

[Genuine]

I also wonder about the false bottom. It sounds like I have the same one as you and I noticed when I attempted to do a full volume mash with 11-12lb's of grain, I think the false bottom flexed and it stopped flow all together. I may cut a section of 1.5" stainless pipe to add support if I choose to do that again.

 

[doug293cz]

Sorry... typed to fast and wasn't clear.
Brewhouse efficiency is the only "efficiency" in Beersmith that is inputted. Several batches and measurement losses to kettle, trub, hoses, etc. has determined (for my system) BE is entered at 78%.
This has consistently brought me to target numbers regardless of beer style, heavy or light.
For that reason (and I may be the outlier here) I really don't pay much attention to measured BE or ME as it varies depending on what you're brewing and therefore doesn't provide me any meaningful data.

Doesn't seem completely plausible to me that the BH efficiency can be constant no matter what the OG of the beer.

BrewHouse Eff = Conv Eff * Lauter Eff * Fermenter Vol / Post-Boil BK Vol​

The above applies whenever no sugar is added during the boil. For a constant pre-boil batch size the lauter efficiency has to go down as the grain bill weight increases (it's just physical chemistry.) Conversion efficiency can be independent of grain bill weight. So to maintain constant BH efficiency efficiency as grain bill increases, you either have to increase the pre-boil volume (and boil off the excess water), or take larger transfer losses (post-boil to fermenter volume losses) on smaller beers. Just can't be any other way. Can anyone find a flaw in this reasoning?

Brew on

 

[ryanj]

I also wonder about the false bottom. It sounds like I have the same one as you and I noticed when I attempted to do a full volume mash with 11-12lb's of grain, I think the false bottom flexed and it stopped flow all together. I may cut a section of 1.5" stainless pipe to add support if I choose to do that again.

I'm curious now... here's a pic of my cooler false bottom:

As you can see I have a high flow 45 degree street elbow, 1/2" silicone tubing, and a standard 1/2" hose barb on the bulkhead. I tried pushing on my domed false bottom and it didn't give. How could I tell if my false bottom is collapsing? I just can't see how this thing could collapse.

I considered maybe picking up one of those "true bulkheads" (https://www.brewhardware.com/product_p/truebulkheadbarb.htm) to help the flow even more, but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be mashing in a cooler, and it might be time to just go ahead and move to a better vessel.

Suggestions?

 

[SEndorf]

Doesn't seem completely plausible to me that the BH efficiency can be constant no matter what the OG of the beer.

BrewHouse Eff = Conv Eff * Lauter Eff * Fermenter Vol / Post-Boil BK Vol​

The above applies whenever no sugar is added during the boil. For a constant pre-boil batch size the lauter efficiency has to go down as the grain bill weight increases (it's just physical chemistry.) Conversion efficiency can be independent of grain bill weight. So to maintain constant BH efficiency efficiency as grain bill increases, you either have to increase the pre-boil volume (and boil off the excess water), or take larger transfer losses (post-boil to fermenter volume losses) on smaller beers. Just can't be any other way. Can anyone find a flaw in this reasoning?

There's no flaw in your reasoning..
My BHE is "set" at 78% based on my system losses. However measured efficiency varies between brew styles.
Perhaps it a Beersmith thing.

 

[doug293cz]

There's no flaw in your reasoning..
My BHE is "set" at 78% based on my system losses. However measured efficiency varies between brew styles.
Perhaps it a Beersmith thing.

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying now.

It's been known for a while that lauter efficiency can be predicted fairly accurately for no-sparge and batch sparge, and that the performance of a good fly sparge is slightly better than a 3x batch sparge. I think BeerSmith could be improved by using this efficiency predictive methodology rather than having the user input a fixed BH efficiency. The user would input their typical conversion efficiency, sparge process details, and the volume losses at mash and out of the boil kettle. BS would then more accurately predict mash efficiency and BH efficiency based on grain bill size vs. batch size. The Priceless calculator actually does this (and I helped make that possible.)

Brew on

 

[augiedoggy]

Interesting. I’m reading more and more that a lot of people don’t run their mash recirculation full bore (like I thought I was supposed to).

Do you stir your mash ocassionally or no? I’ve heard both yes and no. I didn’t have a choice with this last bath and had to stir multiple times and reset the grainbed.

I run mine at 1.5 to 2 gpm (i have a cheap flow meter inline which shows flow rate) no issues with a 20 dollar 24v dc pump and I get over 90% efficiency this way... I think most people make more headches for themselves trying to push the flow rate higher which gives zero benfit and many possible problems.. one reason is the 5-7 gallon per minute home brewing pumps are just too big for this and have to be throttled way down. think about it... theres what maybe 7-8 gallons or mash liquid in the MT for an 11 gallon brew? at 1.5gpm the mash is getting fully recycled through about every 5 mins.. the mash temp isnt going to drop much in 5 mins if at all. also the chance of channeling is pretty much eliminated as well as clogging the false bottom.

btw I never stir may mash once recirc starts.

also I have only ever used rice hulls once to see if I was missing anything and my mill is set to a standard credit card thickness.. I dont condition just like the breweries.. I think ricehulls and conditioning are work arounds for other process flaws myself but thats just based on my experience and not having a need for them.

I do have a large bayou false bottom and a 36" piece of braided line attached to my diptube under my false bottom to prevent anything from plugging my small pump up.

 

[ryanj]

I run mine at 1.5 to 2 gpm (i have a cheap flow meter inline which shows flow rate) no issues with a 20 dollar 24v dc pump and I get over 90% efficiency this way... I think most people make more headches for themselves trying to push the flow rate higher which gives zero benfit and many possible problems.. one reason is the 5-7 gallon per minute home brewing pumps are just too big for this and have to be throttled way down.

btw I never stir may mash once recirc starts.

Tell me about your cheap flow meter. For sake of consistency, I'd love to pick one up.

I have a pair of "china chugger" pumps (https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hig...417.html?spm=a2g0s.9042311.0.0.2ad24c4dZMhWHY) which are rated at 4-5gpm because I felt like the chuggers cost twice the price and not necessarily worth the extra 2gpm. I love my pumps. Cheap and work well.

 

[MX1]

that links to pump not a flow meter.

I am interested the flow meter

T