A couple questions about mash tuns

[Uncle Joe]

Well, as discussed in another thread, I am going AG in may, so I'm building my equipment now.

First things first, is there any benefit that you have experienced with either a cylindrical type cooler or rectangular cooler? I have access to each.

Now, my second question... regarding the distance of the spigot to the bottom of the cooler, is there any preference?

i.e. my rectangular cooler has a spigot that is dead on the bottom of the cooler. My inexperienced brewing mind says this would be better, but I'm very likely wrong. Contrary to this, I have the cylindrical cooler, which has the typical spigot placed an inch or two above the bottom.

which is better?

Thanks rb :D

[danno]

either way, you'll need to make some sort of manifold to filter out the wort. IMO a round mash tun gives you more latitude in batch size, because you do need to have a minimum grain depth. but, rectangular coolers are usually larger, if you plan on doing more than 5 gallon batches...

[MichaelM]

Originally posted by danno
either way, you'll need to make some sort of manifold to filter out the wort. IMO a round mash tun gives you more latitude in batch size, because you do need to have a minimum grain depth. but, rectangular coolers are usually larger, if you plan on doing more than 5 gallon batches...

I went with the 10 gallon round cooler just because of what danno said. I figured it gave me the maximum flexibility for 5 gallon batches... I can brew basically as small of a beer as I want and fly sparging I can prolly get 20-23 pounds of grain in it for some 1.100+ monsters

[BrewDog]

I'll second Danno's & Michael's responses - the trade off is mash depth vs. max batch size.

Avoid a 5 gal cooler, as you'll run out of space quickly. If you batch sparge, A 10 gal cooler can get tight when doing a multi-step mash or even trying to do a single step big (>1.085) beer. A 5 gal simply can't fit everything when doing those beers. My 5 gal mash tun now only serves as the device to hold a corny packed in ice at a party.

Typically, for round coolers, false bottoms or stainless steel braids tend to work the best.

For rectanglular coolers, the rectangular slotted copper manifold usually works the best.

I've also heard good things about the square 48 quart (12 gal) Igloo Ice Cube (yes, it's pretty much a cube). Taller than a typical rectangular cooler, yet more volume than the 10 gallon round.
Either ss braids or slotted copper work best in them.

HTH-

[Uncle Joe]

Thanks a ton, that cleared the pros and cons up perfectly. I have seen the cubic coolers, and I think that may be a great compromise. I don't like brewing big batches, so I would say between the rectangular and round the round would be more suitable.

Why do you say that a false bottom works better on round coolers than a copper manifold? I had planned to do the copper manifold either way, but, if its not optimal, I certainly don't want to. Not saying you're wrong at all, I simply just don't know.

Once again, thanks guys.

[BrewDog]

The physical sizes don't work. First, you can only make a small square in the bottom of the round cooler. Then, all those T's eat up a good chunk of that limited space. You end up with fewer slots for the wort to seep into and so there is more chance of channeling, since all the wort must drain through a smaller number close-together holes.

I'd also add that braids are in general better suited to batch sparging as opposed to fly sparging. This is because the braid usually doesn't uniformly cover the bottom of the tun. In a batch sparge, you stir up the mash before running it off. This means there is no channelling effect to worry about since the wort is uniform throughout the whole batch due to the stir.

Fly (continuous) sparging has water coming in at the same time the wort is flowing out. You want the incoming wort to evenly spread out amongst all the grains in the tun, so that all the sugars are flushed out uniformly. Channelling bypasses pockets of sugars, and simultaneously overrinses those in the channel.
So, you get low efficiency overall since there are lots of sugars left that didn't rinse, AND an astringent wort because those grains that did rinse got over-rinsed.

Round false bottoms spread the holes evenly across the whole bottom. Less chance of channelling because the 'escape routes' are distributed evenly across the whole bottom.


Hope this makes sense-

[Uncle Joe]

Right with ya. Thanks a bunch, just what I needed to know.