Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * Brews and Views Archive 2009 * Archive through May 19, 2009 * Theoretical Capacity < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
 

Peter Roman
Senior Member
Username: Lilbordr

Post Number: 1160
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 12.2.115.11
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 02:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Greetings fellas!
I've been toying with the idea of building (for lack of better words) a big ass brewery. I have the money and the space to do so. What I have available to me:
2 150qt Marine Coolers
1 400l/105gal SS drum.

Based on this what size batch could be made assuming 1.055 SG. I'd ferment in food grade Brutes. I'm going to measure volume in the coolers using 400# digital shipping scale. I'll either use 220V or NG for the heat source. Fire the strike water in the drum then pump it up to the coolers.

Thanks!
Peter 'the kid' Roman
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6599
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

300 / 4 * 2.4 pounds = 180 pounds.

180 * 28 PPPPG / 55 = 91 gallons.

It looks fairly balanced to me.
 

Peter Roman
Senior Member
Username: Lilbordr

Post Number: 1161
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 198.176.16.11
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 03:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Will a 150qt MT be sufficient?
Thanks,
Peter 'the kid' Roman
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6601
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 03:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That is where the 300 figure came from. 2 x 150 = 300. You will need both to do the job.
 

Dave Witt
Senior Member
Username: Davew

Post Number: 1306
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 12.2.161.11
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 05:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What do you have for an HLT?
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1755
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 76.252.39.203
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 05:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmmm,

I'd be inclined to think less than 91 gallons in a 105 gallon boiler. That's not a lot of headspace.
 

Peter Roman
Senior Member
Username: Lilbordr

Post Number: 1162
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 71.68.126.29
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 05:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One cooler will be the HLT and the other the mash tun...
Thanks,
Peter 'the kid' Roman
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 586
Registered: 10-2007
Posted From: 12.165.82.136
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 05:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It can be done. I think it depends on the height/diameter ratio of the kettle. I'll boil 17.5 gallons of wort down to 15 in my 20 gallon brewpot. That's 12.5% headspace, less than 14/105.
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 587
Registered: 10-2007
Posted From: 12.165.82.136
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 05:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Of course, now that I think about it, the 91 gallons is the post boil SG, you'll need more than that pre-boil. So probably not.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 7209
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 140.211.82.4
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 06:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have a 152 qt. cooler and I can get 75 lb. of grain in it with a 1.25 qt./lb. mash ratio with room to spare. Here are some pics...

http://www.bodensatz.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=5232

http://www.bodensatz.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=5295

(Message edited by denny on May 08, 2009)
 

Paul Edwards
Senior Member
Username: Pedwards

Post Number: 1756
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 76.252.39.203
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 07:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah, Kevin,

I'm thinking about 90 gallons pre-boil is the limit for a 105 gallon kettle. That's about the same ratio as your 17.5 gallons pre-boil in a 20 gallon kettle.

I'd say 75-80 gallons post boil is the max, depending on evaporation rate.
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 588
Registered: 10-2007
Posted From: 12.165.82.136
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 08:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So if The Kid is only using one cooler to mash, that is his limiting factor, using Dan's efficiency numbers, he'll get about 45 gallons. If he mashes in both coolers, the boil kettle is the limiting factor, so it's the 75-80 gallons that Paul mentioned.

Of course, if he's using both mash tuns, he could do a higher gravity wort and add water either to the fermenter or at kegging time.
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 589
Registered: 10-2007
Posted From: 12.165.82.136
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 08:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

...of course using using Denny's numbers...that would be 150lbs of grain * 28 PPPPG /80 gallons = 52.5 points, or a 1.0525 beer, so actually the MTs would still be the limiting factor. Dan must have been using less than a 1.25qt/lb mash ratio.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6602
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Friday, May 08, 2009 - 08:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I use 2.4 pounds per gallon. This has been my long experience. I don't measure strike water beyond knowing that I will have enough. I judge the mash solely by its consistency. It is a very sensitive gage. A smidge too little and it is dry, too much ( better to error this way) and it is obviously runny.
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 590
Registered: 10-2007
Posted From: 67.167.4.225
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 07:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So you're at approximately 1.67 quarts/ gallon. I wonder how you get more grain in your tun than Denny then, since you're at a higher water to grain ratio. Maybe his "room to spare" is a lot of room? My own experience is that I can get 27 lbs of well hydrated malt in my 48 quart mash tun, which is fairly close to Denny's numbers.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6604
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 10:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I don't understand 1.67 quarts per gallon.
 

Alec
New Member
Username: Pdxal

Post Number: 6
Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 71.214.86.92
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 05:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

He must mean 1.67 quarts per pound.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6607
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 65.29.223.32
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 05:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

1.67 is way thinner than I do usually. I still don't understand the 1.67 number.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10315
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 06:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

2.4 lbs. per gallon is 0.6 lbs. per quart, or 1.67 qts. per pound. Does it make sense now, Dan?

For what it's worth, 1.67 qts. per pound is about what John Palmer recommends. It seems thin to me; I've been meaning to ask John why he favors it. After some experimenting, I've settled on 1.35 qts. per lb, although I've been known to mash thicker when trying to squeeze a lot of grain into my mash tun.
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 7212
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 75.145.77.185
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 07:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Kai Troester has been doing a lot of very interesting work, including experimenting with higher ratios. You can read his stuff at braukaiser.com .
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6608
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 65.29.223.32
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 10:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No Bill. 2.4 pounds per gallon of mash tun capacity, not gallons of strike water. A ten gallon cooler can mash 24 pounds. Again, I have no idea exactly how much water is involved since I only judge strike water needs by mash consistency, not volume.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10317
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 10:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I understand now, Dan. I got to thinking about my converted keg mash tun, which has a stainless false bottom that covers the entire bottom. I figure the effective capacity at 56 qts. (14 gallons), which would be 31.5 lbs. of grain according to your calculations. At my favored mash thickness of 1.35 quats per pound, my calculated maximum is 33.5 lbs. It would seem that your mash thickness (1.46 quarts per pound) is a little thinner than mine, not that it's a big difference.

(Message edited by BillPierce on May 09, 2009)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6609
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 65.29.223.32
Posted on Saturday, May 09, 2009 - 11:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, you might be forgetting the volume consumed by the grist itself. I really doubt that I use almost 1.5 quarts per pound. At least I can say that I don't heat enough to use that much.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10318
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Sunday, May 10, 2009 - 01:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, I was figuring the volume of malt at 0.32 quarts per pound.
 

Kevin Kowalczyk
Advanced Member
Username: Itsfunbrewingbeer

Post Number: 592
Registered: 10-2007
Posted From: 99.130.84.126
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 01:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I did mean 1.67 quarts per pound, and I thought you (Dan) were referring to your amount of strike water.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6610
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 02:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

2.4 pounds per gallon is 0.417 gallons per pound.

0.417 pounds of water weighs 3.48 pounds.

Subtracting a pound of malt leaves 2.48 pounds of water which is 0.3 gallons or 1.19 quarts.

Evidently I strike with around 1.2 quarts per pound.
 

Steve Jones
Advanced Member
Username: Stevej

Post Number: 643
Registered: 08-2001
Posted From: 199.190.8.12
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 04:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

2.4 pounds of grain in 4 quarts of MASH is 1.67 qts of mash per 1 lb grain (4 / 2.4).

Subtract the 0.32 qts of space that the grain occupies (1.67 - 0.32), and you've got 1.35 qts of water per pound of grain.


Back to Peter: if 1 cooler is the MT and 1 is the HLT, the MT will hold about 95 lbs of grain at a 1.25 qt/lb ratio when filled to the brim. That will make 47 gallons of a 1.055 beer (at 75% efficiency). Assuming an evaporation rate of 15% (you'll probably have less) you'll need about 40 gallons of sparge water, or 160 qts.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6611
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Monday, May 11, 2009 - 07:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"2.4 pounds of grain in 4 quarts of MASH is 1.67 qts of mash per 1 lb grain (4 / 2.4)."

Yes, but how much water is in it? About 1.2 quarts.

If a pound of mash consumes .417 gallons of space, an equivalent volume of water would weigh 3.48 pounds. Since a pound of the mash is grist, the amount of water in the space is 3.48 - 1 = 2.48 pounds which occupy .30 gallons. The volume of the grist, dissolved in water, therefore, must be .417 - .30 = .117 gallons per pound or about 27 cubic inches.

Interestingly the volume of sugars dissolved in water is 17. Maybe we have about 10 cubic inches of non-sugar "stuff" in a pound of grist.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10323
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 04:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Another way to look at it is that malt has a volume of 0.32 quarts (or 10.48 oz. or 18.91 cubic inches) per pound. At Dan's ratio of 2.4 lbs. of grain (25.15 oz. or 45.39 cubic inches) per gallon (128 ounces or 231 cubic inches) of mash, the water volume per gallon of mash would be 185.61 (231 - 45.39) cubic inches or 102.85 (128 - 25.15) oz. or 3.21 quarts. Divided by 2.4 lbs. we arrive at a water/grain ratio of 1.34 quarts (42.80 ounces or 77.24 cubic inches) per pound.

(Message edited by BillPierce on May 12, 2009)
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 6612
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 74.83.191.159
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 01:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, is your 0.32 figure dry or wet?
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10324
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 02:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It's wet volume in that 1 pound of malt and 1 quart of water has a total volume of 1.32 quarts (42.24 ounces or 76.23 cubic inches). It's easier to measure the volume wet than dry because the crush affects dry volume (that is, the volume of crushed malt is different than if it is uncrushed).
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 2200
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 82.46.66.90
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 03:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I got to ask Peter, why?

I usually make 8 or 10 UK gallons of beer at a time but have recently made the decision on my next few brews to only make 5 gallons. Do you really want 45 gallons of the same beer? Are you going to split the batches? Parti-gyle?

How many kegs do you have? How quickly will you get through the beer?
 

davidwaite
Senior Member
Username: Davidw

Post Number: 1980
Registered: 03-2001
Posted From: 65.163.6.62
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 03:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I do believe that "The Kid" has something devious in mind. We have raised him well!
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 2201
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 82.46.66.90
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 04:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I should have guessed...
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10325
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 04:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Peter is young, single, and I'm assuming he has many friends who enjoy the good beer he brews. I think I can safely say he's a popular guy.
 

Patrick C.
Advanced Member
Username: Patrickc

Post Number: 882
Registered: 01-2001
Posted From: 72.37.171.84
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 06:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

or a serious alcoholic

I'd like to be able to brew huge batches just to say I did. I have 20 kegs, so I guess I could store it all up for a massive party. I'd probably only shoot for 50 gallons, though.

I'm not sure it would be worth it, but it would be fun to do once.
 

The Jolly Brewer
Senior Member
Username: Matfink

Post Number: 2202
Registered: 03-2003
Posted From: 82.46.66.90
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 07:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'd like to make a brew using a whole 25kg sack of grain, again, just to say I;d done it. But that's small fry compared to what Peter is suggesting.
 

Steve Jones
Advanced Member
Username: Stevej

Post Number: 644
Registered: 08-2001
Posted From: 199.190.8.12
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 08:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I once used an entire sack of Fawcett Maris Otter in a 10 gallon barleywine. That was in my rookie all-grain days and before I realized that my 1/2 bbl mash tun would only hold about 38 lbs (and that was at 1 qt/lb).

I quickly heated some more water and put the rest of the mash in a big cooler. I sparged the first mash, then the second to get 20 gallons of wort, which I then boiled down to about 11. That was one lllooonnnnggg brew day.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 10329
Registered: 01-2002
Posted From: 24.141.103.148
Posted on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 11:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By the way, you would need more than 100 amps at 240 volts to heat Peter's proposed wort volume with electricity. I think you would be better off with natural gas. It goes without saying that you need to brew outdoors or in an *extremely* well ventilated area. You would need a stack to vent the steam if brewing indoors, even in a garage with an electric kettle.

I flirted for a while with the thought of a 1 bbl. system using 55 gallon stainless drums. It seems to me that's the smallest size commercial system that is worth the effort. But I gave up the dreaming when I recognized all the hoops I would have to jump through and the major problems of distribution and marketing. I'm happily brewing 10 gallon batches these days.

(Message edited by BillPierce on May 12, 2009)