I like the 3-piece design as you can fully take them apart and clean components, which is obviously crucial. However, I’m not a fan of the 4 bolts it takes to disassemble. Does anyone use an alternative ball valve that still allows for complete disassembly? I’m not a fan of butterfly valves due to the disk being in the middle of the flow, but open to suggestions. I use these all over the place in my home brewing.
I agree that the stainless steel ball valves are a real pain to take apart and re-assemble. I have a butterfly valve on the bottom of my SS Brewtech conical to burp out the yeast and love it. They are really easy to CIP and the only time you need to take them apart is when you have to replace the gasket around the butterfly. Having the butterfly in the wort/beer stream is no big deal for me.
I am thinking of changing out the racking arm valve (a stainless three piece ball valve) to a butterfly valve as well, just have not gotten around to it as of yet.
This may be the answer I am looking for to control my pump during RIMS operations. It’s tough to accurately control flow with a ball valve. I was looking at a gate valve but it is not near as sexy (it looks like an outside water spigot) for about the same price.
Three-piece ball valves are considerably more expensive and I don’t believe they are of any particular benefit in a homebrew setup. Their intended purpose is to provide the ability to replace the ball and valve stem seal without removing the valve connections from the piping system. That said, they’re nice if a brewer is unable to properly flush and sanitize their system; the valves can be disassembled for cleaning.
Edit: I just received the Quick Clean Take Apart Ball Valves. Wow. They’re VERY well engineered and solidly built. First impression is extremely positive. We’ll see how a brewday goes with them.
I added the Blichmann linear flow control valve to my pump output recently In hopes of adding more control to my system and my chugger pump. I haven’t had a chance to brew with it yet but I did take it for a dry run. I ran it at different levels of flow and measured the flow by timing how long it took to fill a quart.
I have had success with recirculating my mash at .6 gallon per minute and wanted to make this rate of flow repeatable. So I set a flow and measured it at .6 gpm and measured the physical distance on the valve between off and .6 gpm. Then I set it to 1 gpm, which is almost too fast for my system. The difference on the valve between .6gpm and 1gpm is almost impossible to measure. The procedure is something like, set flow to .5 gmp, place fingers on valve, think about turning valve, and now you’re at 1 gpm.
It definitely has a much finer control than a ball valve but in the range of control that concerns me and my system, it’s just slightly less clunky than a ball valve. Super easy to clean though.
Though I haven’t measured the gpm, I found a sweet spot at just under 5/32” measured from the machining edge to the edge of the rotating knob. This measurement is slow enough that I don’t compact the grain bed and cavitate the pump but fast enough to flow across the RIMS element that I get good temp ramp and consistent mash temp across the grain bed. I can disassemble, clean, and reassemble the pump and valve and reset this gap with confidence.
This pump measurement is combined with 1.752 qts/lb mash thickness and a mill setting of the RH edge of the mark on the knurled knob to the LH edge of the housing match mark on a JSP Malt Mill. I find this combination is consistent from beer to beer and the results are predictable.
However, I believe this sweet spot and combination of variables are different from brewery to brewery based on that brewer’s system.
Correct, it’s just a single variable in my system.
I’m not sure I understand how mash thickness matters to getting a good flow through the grain bed. Doing a full volume mash, my water/grist varies depending on the desired gravity. But because I have a whopping 2.5 gallons below my false bottom, my mash will be much thicker than someone with a very shallow false bottom, using the same ratio. Besides, with the amount of water being the only variable, won’t the thickness of a recirculated mash just settle in more or less the same each time, with the depth of the water on top simply getting deeper or shallower?
My crank and Stein mill is adjustable in increments of .005". It’s now at .045. Crushing at .050 leaves some uncrushed grains so I’m as coarse as I can go.
Not much difference between 1 gpm and .6 gpm is there! What is that — maybe a 1/16” or even 1/32”?! Wow.
I only mention the other variables in relationship with each other because that’s the way I operate my brewery. I believe a combination of components and how they are used all contribute to the outcome. One change may or may not require other adjustments. A system of systems if you will.
I should also mention I use a Brew Bag as a mash filter as well as a false bottom (but it is not a traditional false bottom). It’s really just a baker’s cooling rack with large holes trimmed to fit simply to keep the mash bag off the bottom and allow good flow underneath. It is about 3/16” off the bottom of the MLT.
Another consideration is the inside diameter, material, length of hoses and number of elbows and valves in the plumbing. I have two five foot and one three foot 1/2” ID silicone hoses in my recirculating circuit. There are four 90* elbows and a RIMS tube which also contains two 90* turns. The entire system restricts pump flow therefore a different system will react accordingly.
This is when a manometer plumbed into the bottom of the mash tun comes in handy. With the manometer reading, you can dial in exactly the flow rate your bed can handle. Minute turns of the valve can easily be seen in the manometer level.
The manometer definitely aids in fine tuning the flow. The slightest tweak on even a lowly ball valve is clearly indicated by a water level drop in the tube. Looking forward to trying it on an actual mash. Maybe next week…