The Phil's piece is limited to liquid above the level of it's intake
point (the hole on the underside). Also, i've found that it tends to
get several pieces of grain stuckin it which have to be removed.
--
R E HAWKINS
Cheers Pete
>The water is distributed evenly over the top of the grain bed with the
>Sparger, if you use a manifold on top of the grain that works well also.
>The problem with letting water simply flow over the grain, it that it isn't
>evenly distributed, leaving cool spots, or uneven temperatures in the
>bed below. It is similiar to a gentle, hot rain.
--
R E HAWKINS
>I vote for the Phalse Bottom, it has served my very well for several dozen
brews.
>I choose it for the much lower price, it seemed a much better value for the
money.
>Cheers Pete
>>> If the grain is covered entirely with water, it
>>>doesn't matter where the new water enters, so long as it doesn't create
>>>a jet messing with you grain bed. Just splash it off the side instead
>>The water is distributed evenly over the top of the grain bed with the
>>Sparger, if you use a manifold on top of the grain that works well also.
>>The problem with letting water simply flow over the grain, it that it isn't
>>evenly distributed, leaving cool spots, or uneven temperatures in the
>>bed below. It is similiar to a gentle, hot rain.
>I know this is the theory, but i question whether it is correct or not.
>The heat transfer rate in water is awefully high; it would be almost
>impossible for hot/cool spots to form in a body of water this size,
>wouldn't it? I coudn't figure out how it ould happen, and never
>reassembled that sprinkler after the last time it fell apart.
Just another data point. YMMv
Cheers Pete
>>I vote for the Phalse Bottom, it has served my very well for several dozen
>brews.
>>I choose it for the much lower price, it seemed a much better value for the
>money.
>>Cheers Pete
>The November/December issue of Brewing Techniques (vol. 2(6)) discusses
>false bottom drawbacks. The main problem I seem to remember was that there
>is too much dead space below the false bottom, and the liquid in that space
>does not mix well.
> tracy
BUT I don't think it matters what's left in the bottom of the tun, sprarging will
go on until the runnings have dropped in specific gravity to about 1.012 SG.
Whatever is left in the ba***t should have too low of a SG to use. In fact
when I stop the runnings, the tun may still be half full of hot water... I cut it off
because the specific gravity has dropped below the 1.008 to 1.012 lower
limit for SG of the runnings I have decided on for that brew.
I may be in left field on this one, so straighten me out if I'm missing something.
A quick aside, I read somewhere, to add hot liquor ( 180degree water ) into the
mash tun before dough-in, this is the ba***t or foundation water. The level
of the foudation should cover the holes or slots of the false bottoms/manifolds. It helps
setup the grain bed intially around the false bottom or manifold slots during doughin
and at the start of sprarging.
The water allows the husks of the grain settle down around the
holes/slots, and this helps keep the flour pieces from making a
stuck mash by clogging the holes/slots. The husks protect the holes from
plugging up. It was also suggested to start runoffs slowly at first to aid
in the setting up of the grain bed around the holes/slots. I agree with
this advise.
There you have it.
Cheers Pete
Malty brewing
is
>>>Cheers Pete
>>The November/December issue of Brewing Techniques (vol. 2(6)) discusses
>>false bottom drawbacks. The main problem I seem to remember was that there
>>is too much dead space below the false bottom, and the liquid in that space
>>does not mix well.
>> tracy
Jim Busch
As Jim Busch said though, the false-bottom is probably best *provided*
you can keep the dead space to an absolute minimum and that you draw the
wort from the bottom and not the side. John Palmer has also told me that
the best thing is to maximize the area over which filtration is taking
place, and the false bottom obviously has the largest area.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
--
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109
....I'm not from here, I just live here....
This certainly seems correct to me.
I thought I'd insert an idea...
My current false bottom is a round screen thing, I think it's for putting
under pizzas, with an aluminum mesh (1/4" openings), and a piece of
plastic awning screen covering it. You get the plastic awning screening
at hardware stores, it's for making a shade to cover an outdoor deck,
etc... Actually I'm using two round aluminum things, with the plastic
mesh sandwiched in between. Works great for me. I haven't mashed wheat
yet, but I suspect it would be ok. My "dead space" is about 3/4" deep.
One disadvantage is, it's just a bit harder to cleanup afterwards.
Frank
--
>>>>>>>>>> Olathe, Kansas Compuserve: 70036,1546 <<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>> I feel more like I do now than I did when I started... <<<<<<<
4. Phalse bottom and sprayer ?
5. Phils Phalse Bottom installed in standard bottling bucket?
6. Phil's Phalse Bottom Problem
8. Easymasher vs. Phalse Bottom
9. Forgot answer - how to keep Phils Phalse Bottom from Floating?
10. Phalse Bottom or Easymasher?
11. Confused about phalse bottom
13. Fix for floating Phalse Bottom?
14. easymasher vs. manifold vs. phalse bottom