Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Bob Ed » Sat, 18 Feb 1995 03:59:00



Just a quick question.  I am getting ready to modify a 10-gallon Gott
cooler to use as a mash/lauter tun.  I'm planning to use a Phil's Sparger
on top, but can't decide whether to use a Phil's Phalse Bottom or a slotted
copper manifold in the bottom of the cooler.  I've heard pros and cons
about both approaches.  Since I'm planning to make a decision soon I'd be
interested in hearing opinions from y'all.  Which way should I go?
 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by rhawk.. » Sat, 18 Feb 1995 11:25:17



Quote:

>Just a quick question.  I am getting ready to modify a 10-gallon Gott
>cooler to use as a mash/lauter tun.  I'm planning to use a Phil's Sparger
>on top,

I think these are either irrelevant or close to it, and on top of that
they fall apart.  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

Quote:
>but can't decide whether to use a Phil's Phalse Bottom or a slotted
>copper manifold in the bottom of the cooler.

My opinions on the general quality of Phil's stuff is no big secret
around here :)  However, the false bottom is the only part of the
sparging system they sell that works as it should (or at least close).
I use one of those in my small system, and a copper manifold in my big
set.  They both work.  The tubing can gravity drain liquid down to it's
lowest level *if* the tubes inside the unit do not rise above this level
at any time on the way out.  Otherwise it is limited to the highest
intake point.  It is also limited to this highest poit during a dipon.

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


 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Graves Pet » Sun, 26 Feb 1995 00:28:52



Quote:
>Just a quick question.  I am getting ready to modify a 10-gallon Gott
>cooler to use as a mash/lauter tun.  I'm planning to use a Phil's Sparger
>on top, but can't decide whether to use a Phil's Phalse Bottom or a slotted
>copper manifold in the bottom of the cooler.  I've heard pros and cons
>about both approaches.  Since I'm planning to make a decision soon I'd be
>interested in hearing opinions from y'all.  Which way should I go?

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

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by rhawk.. » Sun, 26 Feb 1995 13:18:23


Quote:

>>              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.

Quote:
>>>but can't decide whether to use a Phil's Phalse Bottom or a slotted
>>>copper manifold in the bottom of the cooler.
>If you do use a manifold in the bottom of the tun,  a suggestion, use
>cotter pins and little holes drilled to assemble
>the system, it allows easy disassembly and cleaning.  Cut all the pipe and
>sand the ends and slots.  Fit it all together.  Then drilling small holes
>through each connection of pipe to coupling.  Pin the parts together
>with slightly bent cotter pins.  At the end of the mash, pull the pins and
>wash everything...

Better yet, make it a size such that the shape of the cooler will hold
it in place, and you don't have to worry about it.  I have a friend who
had the pipes come apart under all his grain, but my system (well, the
tubes i seem to have thrown out with the grain and that i'm slicing
replacements for tomrorrow) pushes the pieces all of the way to the side
of the unit. It doesn't come apart, and i merely have to slide the
pieces together.

--
R E HAWKINS

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Tracy Aquil » Wed, 01 Mar 1995 01:12:33



Quote:

writes:
>>Just a quick question.  I am getting ready to modify a 10-gallon Gott
>>cooler to use as a mash/lauter tun.  I'm planning to use a Phil's Sparger
>>on top, but can't decide whether to use a Phil's Phalse Bottom or a slotted
>>copper manifold in the bottom of the cooler.  I've heard pros and cons
>>about both approaches.  Since I'm planning to make a decision soon I'd be
>>interested in hearing opinions from y'all.  Which way should I go?

>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
 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Graves Pet » Sat, 04 Mar 1995 05:23:46



Quote:

>>>              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.

Peace, I know how you feel.  Try this next batch... take two dairy
type thermometers put them in different place in the mash... check the
different temps from time to time...  they vary much more than I thought
possible also.

Just another data point.  YMMv

Cheers Pete

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Graves Pet » Tue, 07 Mar 1995 06:15:01



Quote:


>writes:
>>>Just a quick question.  I am getting ready to modify a 10-gallon Gott
>>>cooler to use as a mash/lauter tun.  I'm planning to use a Phil's Sparger
>>>on top, but can't decide whether to use a Phil's Phalse Bottom or a slotted
>>>copper manifold in the bottom of the cooler.  I've heard pros and cons
>>>about both approaches.  Since I'm planning to make a decision soon I'd be
>>>interested in hearing opinions from y'all.  Which way should I go?

>>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

Tracy,  It is true the Phalse Bottom does leave about  1/2 inch (ish) of liquid
in the bottom of the tun, maybe a couple cups, a quart no more.  This ba***t water
is left in false bottom and manifold tuns both.  

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

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Ilkka Sysi » Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:45:19


 I vote for "tubular strainer" better known as EM (tm). Works
 fine in any scale mashing & lautering system.

Malty brewing

is

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Jim Bus » Fri, 10 Mar 1995 04:34:52


Quote:
>>>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

My vote goes for the false bottom.  I do feel it is helpful to design
the unit so that the outflow is from the bottom, not the side.  This way,
the wort is not trapped, but pulled from the very bottom.  This is the way
professional tuns are made.  Also, keep the bottom less than 1 inch off,
to minimize the dead space.

Jim Busch

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by David Drap » Sat, 11 Mar 1995 08:15:32



Quote:

> I vote for "tubular strainer" better known as EM (tm). Works
> fine in any scale mashing & lautering system.

I had good luck with an em too, until I started doing 40-60-70 mashes,
then the thing is totally gummed up with proteins.  Had two set mashes in
a row--the first was a wheat beer (50% malted wheat), and I thought it
was simply from the wheat.  Next though was a dry stout, no wheat malt at
all, and the 40-60-70 mash--stuck fast within minutes.  So they are fine
for single-stage infusions, but my copper manifold, which I made to
replace the em, has worked great with all conditions of grain bill and
mash program.

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....

 
 
 

Phalse Bottom or copper manifold?

Post by Frank Longmo » Sat, 11 Mar 1995 23:50:49


Quote:
>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

                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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... <<<<<<<