Rubber Seal for filter plates

[mashy]

Help...... It wasn't me!

I feel like an echo

[mashy]

echo

[squadricus]

I want to find out if the direction of flow of sparge through the grain bed established by upflow in the BM matters.

It's about the effect of direction of flow when lautering and sparging on the gummy layers that form at the top and bottom of the grain bed.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1618&p=15492&hilit=unterteig#p15492

If we form the unterteig at the top of the grain bed in the BM, then form the oberteig on top of it when sparging,

Inverting may very well be a bad idea, but it may better suggest what'll happen if scaling up to a more conventional brewhouse.

The flow reversal on lautering & sparging the BM offers may be than in 3V systems, especially if the top plate is pulled out and the top of the grain bed stirred or cut.

[mashy]

I am with you now. The reason I was interested is because I had come up with a similar plan BUT from the other end !!

You are planning to hoist the malt tube, turn it over, and sparge [in the same way as pumped flow]

I had the idea to put a valve into the pumps 'in' so that it could pump the sparge water in & hence maintain the same flow direction.

Everyone will tell you sparging makes no difference in BM. Fact: it doesn't BUT is that because the grain bed in upside down !! I think certainly think so.

PS I am sure we are well off topic - sorry...

[squadricus]

I doodled a little on upflow sparging in the BM, but concluded it would need a second vessel to direct the wort to while sparging. It would also leave you with the grain bed full of water when finished. Not fatal problems, but significant complications. If brewing to make malta or for distilled spirits, the tradeoffs in the BM design might make less sense than for normal gravity beers with moderate levels of gummy grains.

[mashy]

Yes indeed I was going to pipe it to a burco. After all that has been said and done about sparging. I am not sure it was worth the work for beer.

Do not understand your references to gummy grains at all?

Surely you want water in the grain need after sparging?

[squadricus]

Gummy grains ==> those like wheat and rye that tend to cause lautering and sparging difficulties.

If you were sparging upward to the end, the malt pipe would be undrained at that point. I guess if you're fly sparging downward, and doing it "properly" you would have some water above the top of the grain bed when you stop. So the difference between the top of the malt pipe and the top of the grain bed, plus the weak runnings outside the malt pipe, plus the water beneath the lower screen would be the amount of water you'd dispose of with upward sparging.

[mashy]

Gummy grains ==> those like wheat and rye that tend to cause lautering and sparging difficulties.

If you were sparging upward to the end, the malt pipe would be undrained at that point. I guess if you're fly sparging downward, and doing it "properly" you would have some water above the top of the grain bed when you stop. So the difference between the top of the malt pipe and the top of the grain bed, plus the weak runnings outside the malt pipe, plus the water beneath the lower screen would be the amount of water you'd dispose of with upward sparging.

I see your meaning, IMHO I think it so minute as to be irrelevant..... and controllable by the operator.

[Dicko]

I personally think that some of you guys are "overthinking" the process.

99.9% of us on this forum are only brewing 20 or 50 litres.
Lifting and inverting the malt pipe to sparge is a lot of extra work and with some risk of grains making their way into the boil.

I used to sparge, originally by tipping sparge water through the supported malt pipe, then by removing the malt pipe and sparging into a separate vessel and then thanks to a few on this forum I just mashed with the full volume of water required for the recipe, remove the malt pipe, drain and boil.

With no real difference in results, I will be just using the "no sparge" method as my thoughts are....why stuff around doing an extra process and using an extra vessel for no gain.

[judgecc]

+1. I bought the Bm to make brew days more laid back.

[LMoerkens]

I agree, want to make beer!!!
I am experimenting moe with the different styles of beers and trying to get as close as possible to my favorite Belgian beers.

[TCBrewer]

I would like to try the mash with the full amount of water as suggested by Dicko. Does this mean that I could still mash with the pumps recirculating, even if the wort is higher than the mash tube? I have the 50 litre BM
Regards

[ibbones]

I would like to try the mash with the full amount of water as suggested by Dicko. Does this mean that I could still mash with the pumps recirculating, even if the wort is higher than the mash tube? I have the 50 litre BM
Regards

I have the 20L but I do it all the time now. I add my water and it is over the top of the center rod. When I get ready to mash in, I drain some water off into a bucket so I can put the malt pipe in and add the grain, put the top screen on and add the water back.
After mashing is over I drain water out so I can get to the mash pipe and pull it up so it sits on top and I hit the "boil" button. I take my full malt pipe and set it on top of my bucket to drain a bit more and then add the draining s back into the BM.

It's been a long time since I have sparged.

[mashy]

Did this flood method improve anything?

[judgecc]

Did this flood method improve anything?

No it don't. But the question is, did it hurt the beer in anyway? Nope, it's by my knowledge the same as with sparge. The best thing of course is that it's one less step in brewing.. Started with Biab, and now im right back there. Except clearer wort and optimized temp ramping..
Little less boil off otherwise its pretty much the same..