Brewing Master » Brewing Beer » False bottoms vs manifolds
False bottoms vs manifolds
Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I lautered that entire batch with NOTHING but the grainbed as a filter. No manifold, no false bottom. My extraction was just fine and there was no problem with a stuck sparge. I wouldn’t recommend this approach, but it makes me wonder if we put too much stock in a manifold vs. a false bottom. Thank you for corroborating what I have suggested many times. The endless questions about the best location for an EM, how it can possibly work etc. are best answered by recognizing that all the EM does is prevent the spigot from clogging in the initial flow. All the filtering is done by the grain bed. I have often suspected that it would work just as well without the screen at all but never had the chutzpa to try it. Besides, it’s not good for business. The very first EM was just a precaution in case my laboriously made false bottom allowed stuff through. Scorching was such a problem that I had to remove the FB and found that the screen worked fine without it. I am not surprised to learn that we can take it a step farther. js — ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm Home Page: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf Just my 2 cents. Chuck
Well, I can’t agree with you here Jack. Bottom line: Chuck got lucky. On more than one occasion I’ve had my fittings disconnect and had to transfer all the grain (in two separate stages) to my old ZAPPAP later tun. What a PITA. Yes, the filtering is done by the grain bed, but the fluid flow into the tubing will draw grain thru unless the mash is well attracted (sticky) or the flow rate is extremely slow. Every time my fittings came apart while stirring, I was not able to complete the sparge without transfering… – Benny
Response:
: I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am : looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom?? I’ve used both a manifold system (slots down) and a false bottom. The false bottom performed better for me. YMMV. The following Gott modification does not float, has only about 1 quart of foundation space and routinely gets over 30 pts/lb/gal, but it involves a bit of work. I purchased a 12" stainless steel unperforated pizza pan. Taped 1/4" graph paper on the pan and dented it every 1/2" with a drill set, then drilled 1/8" holes at each set. You can purchase perforated pizza pans and avoid all the drilling. At a boating supply store I bought a 5/8" a brass bulkhead fitting. This fitting is threaded internally for 3/8". I also purchased a hose barb with 3/8" threads, and 2 flare elbows. I flared a short arc of copper tubing (6") and drilled a larger hole in the side of the pizza plate that a flare elbow threads into. The other elbow is on the inside side of the bulkhead fitting. The hose barb goes on the outside side of the bulkhead fitting. About 3.25 (cut to fit) feet of 1" thick-walled tubing (Tygon in my case) was slit lengthwise and fit all around the edge of the pizza pan. This forms a tight seal with the bottom and sides of the cooler. The bulkhead fitting with external hose barb and internal flare elbow fits into the spigot hole of the Gott. The perforated pizza pan with circumferential tubing seal and flare elbow lays upside down on the bottom of the cooler and the short arc of flared tubing connects the 2 flare elbows. Everything fits together finger tight. : : |<– Inside wall of cooler | | / Perforated Pizza Pan | | ___/ ___ | |/ o/ <– 1" thich-walled tubing (slit) /o | |___/ ___/| Domenick Venezia Venezia & Company, LLC Maker of PrimeTab (206) 782-1152 phone (206) 782-6766 fax orders demonick at zgi dot com http://www.primetab.com FREE PrimeTab SAMPLES! Enough for three 5 gallon batches. Fax, phone, or email: name, shipping address (no P.O.B.) and phone number. (I won’t call. It’s for UPS in case of delivery problems). Sorry, lower 48 only.
Response:
A great job done by John Palmer. I wonder if a perforated false bottom would have the same effect? — Kevin Eddy Life is to short to drink bad Beer!
HAUN"
| | I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am | looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom?? | | steve haun | | | Before you build check out this info: | | http://realbeer.com/jjpalmer/fluidflow.html | | Wayne | Botanist Brewer | Big Fun Brewing RIMS Site | http://member.aol.com/bfbrewing/BigFunBrewing.htm | | Note: Spamguard used in email address….. | |
Response:
I use a Gott and hassled with the Phil’s Phloating bottom for too long. I suggest either a sheet metal FB (with holes in it) or an Easy Masher type setup. Personally, I use both. I like the FB because I can stir to my hearts content and not knock, beat, crush or any other such VERBal abuse to my Sure Screen (I made my own through-wall valve fittings). The Sure Screen just prevent particles from being pumped though my pump. With the Phalse Bottom setup, I had too many problems keeping grains out of my valve setup. Once to the point of emptying everything out to reset to FB. Never again. If you were going to direct fire your mash, then I agree with Jack, use the EM to minimize burning or carmelizing. But with a Gott, take your pick. I haven’t seen any evidence that one is better than the other, Many theories but no real data. My theory is that the FB allows more consistent lautering across the entire grain bed. You can see mine for a while at http://www.primenet.com/~dschultz/mashtun.html . I’ve changed ISP’s and I haven’t transfered the pages yet. I don’t know how long Primenet will keep them there. Burp, -Dan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom?? steve haun
Response:
I rarely have to recirculate much, if any with may Phils false bottom. On floating, I think my old shop owner’s advice solved that before it was a problem, which it never has been for me. I use two spoons to stir, one holds the false bottom down firmly. The problem I have with Phils false bottom is that there is no clean way , or consistent, way to attached to the spigot. EZ-Masher at least gives you a complete product: screen, spigot, and value for flow-control. Phils is just piece of plastic and an elbow for hose connections. I like to see Phil sale a high quality spigot and attachment hose or tube to work with Gotts coolers. And it would be nice to have a heavy SS version that would not float,. too. If you go with Phils False bottom, get two in-line flow values, just a few bucks. You need some control of the flow rate on the sparge water and lauter both. Good Brewing! ,Bart
Response:
If you add all the strike water before adding the grain, Phil’s Phalse Bottom will float and will need to be held down. This is a poor procedure from a number of perspectives. If the grain is added _WITH_ the water – pan for pan as needed – floating is not a problem. Lately I have taken to underleting the strike water up through the botttom while stirring in the grain. I can use 5 degree cooler water this way and don’t have to use two pans.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I use a Gott and hassled with the Phil’s Phloating bottom for too long. I suggest either a sheet metal FB (with holes in it) or an Easy Masher type setup. Personally, I use both. I like the FB because I can stir to my hearts content and not knock, beat, crush or any other such VERBal abuse to my Sure Screen (I made my own through-wall valve fittings). The Sure Screen just prevent particles from being pumped though my pump. With the Phalse Bottom setup, I had too many problems keeping grains out of my valve setup. Once to the point of emptying everything out to reset to FB. Never again. If you were going to direct fire your mash, then I agree with Jack, use the EM to minimize burning or carmelizing. But with a Gott, take your pick. I haven’t seen any evidence that one is better than the other, Many theories but no real data. My theory is that the FB allows more consistent lautering across the entire grain bed. You can see mine for a while at http://www.primenet.com/~dschultz/mashtun.html . I’ve changed ISP’s and I haven’t transfered the pages yet. I don’t know how long Primenet will keep them there. Burp, -Dan I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom?? steve haun
Response:
Dan, with all the bantor about the floating properties of your FB. Have you tried finding a different plastic to make your’s out of? The polyolefin that you chose is one of the few plastics that have a specific gravity under 1.00 at 0.90 Hence, it floats. Most other plastics are above 1.10. Nylon at 1.14, Polyester at 1.32, and Acetal at 1.41 (a great choice in my book)
Phil’s Phalse Bottom is made from HDPE. I can’t simply switch materials because I purchase it perforated off the shelf. If used properly, floating is not an issue. If it must be used improperly options include a weighted hose, a gasket formed from a split hose, simple holding it down with something or using a screw to keep it down. Pouring the strike water in at once before the grain stresses the enzymes and should be avoided. Adding the strike water with the grain does not do this and will keep the bottom from floating. Thousands are being used very successfully this way. I use it the way it was designed and the way that is best for the grain. Dan
Response:
I guess I just like an idiot proof system. My SS perforated FB fits extremely snug and nothing gets by no matter how I decide to add my water and grain. One batch with the hassles that dislodging a FB can present easily justifies the extra cost of the SS FB. The Phil’s FB does make a nice cover fo the grain bed. I let my sparge water trickle into a cup that sits on the Phil’s FB. Otherwise, the cup would eventually sink into the mash. Dan, with all the bantor about the floating properties of your FB. Have you tried finding a different plastic to make your’s out of? The polyolefin that you chose is one of the few plastics that have a specific gravity under 1.00 at 0.90 Hence, it floats. Most other plastics are above 1.10. Nylon at 1.14, Polyester at 1.32, and Acetal at 1.41 (a great choice in my book) could be used. Watch out for the amorphous plastics like ABS and polycarbonate which may not have adequate modulus at mash temps. Burp, -Dan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you add all the strike water before adding the grain, Phil’s Phalse Bottom will float and will need to be held down. This is a poor procedure from a number of perspectives. If the grain is added _WITH_ the water – pan for pan as needed – floating is not a problem. Lately I have taken to underleting the strike water up through the botttom while stirring in the grain. I can use 5 degree cooler water this way and don’t have to use two pans. I use a Gott and hassled with the Phil’s Phloating bottom for too long. I suggest either a sheet metal FB (with holes in it) or an Easy Masher type setup. Personally, I use both. I like the FB because I can stir to my hearts content and not knock, beat, crush or any other such VERBal abuse to my Sure Screen (I made my own through-wall valve fittings). The Sure Screen just prevent particles from being pumped though my pump. With the Phalse Bottom setup, I had too many problems keeping grains out of my valve setup. Once to the point of emptying everything out to reset to FB. Never again. If you were going to direct fire your mash, then I agree with Jack, use the EM to minimize burning or carmelizing. But with a Gott, take your pick. I haven’t seen any evidence that one is better than the other, Many theories but no real data. My theory is that the FB allows more consistent lautering across the entire grain bed. You can see mine for a while at http://www.primenet.com/~dschultz/mashtun.html . I’ve changed ISP’s and I haven’t transfered the pages yet. I don’t know how long Primenet will keep them there. Burp, -Dan I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom?? steve haun
Response:
I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom??
Personally I think that a false bottom is probably better. John Palmer posted some info on this to the Homebrew Digest. He did a proper test on a manifold system. BTW, before you ask, my mash/lauter tun uses a manifold. — Cyclops
Response:
I am considering building an mash/lauter tun from a Gott cooler. I am looking for opinions. What is better: manifold system or a false bottom?? steve haun
Before you build check out this info: http://realbeer.com/jjpalmer/fluidflow.html Wayne Botanist Brewer Big Fun Brewing RIMS Site http://member.aol.com/bfbrewing/BigFunBrewing.htm Note: Spamguard used in email address…..
Response:
I got better extraction when I moved from a manifold to a false bottom, but in fairness to the manifold other variables changed as well. More headaches with the false bottom, though, as it tends to float and really tick me off! But I still use it … cheers, -Alan — — "It must be light, because our Brewmaster says that the colour is a sign of Quality: The lighter a K