Pages: 1 2
drain perpendicular or parrallel
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86138414@N … 3/sizes/l/
I need some advice,
I started making a mash lauter tun with the intentions of using a double tee to connect the center of the manifold to the ball valve like what is usually done. After building the manifold w/o the double tee, I realized that no one actually carries a 1/2" copper double tee, it was just a result of a google search. So, now I am going to have to put the ball valve perpendicular with the cut copper tubing (see the link).
My question is, will I still get the same results or would this create a problem with efficiency?
Please help
Thanks
Zabba
From your sketch it looks identical to how it should be, not quite sure what you mean by "double"T and how it would configure. Does a double T look like an H? a X on top?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86138414@N00/3837030990/
this is the design that i feel is most commonly used, not sure though.
yes it does look like a cross, and i have just called all plumbing supplies in town and no luck. I am just going to have to put the valve perpendicular.
I am just worried that the tube closest to the valve is going to create channeling, or am I just over thinking it?
thanks for the reply
my manifold is set up similar to the second sketch you posted, but i used 4 long connecting pieces, instead of three. this way you only need to use regular 'T' sections, one faces the ball valve, then two on each side facing the opposite direction for the long connectors. hope that makes sense...
if you have the room, i would try for something like that. you don't need any of the 'X' type connectors, and it will give you more liquid collection points, which reduces the channeling.
There is also a fitting that has the "+" but also has a top and bottom fixture, almost like a 3D +. You could use that and just plug and cap the unwanted directions. Just tossing ideas.
I found this http://www.mcmaster.com/#4464k314/=39aslb on mcmaster carr as well, a tad expensive in stainless steel, but couldnt find anything cheaper.
Thanks for the help,
I will try for the 4 leg option if it will fit, it seems most efficient and I have 5' of extra copper. After talking to many different plumbing supply places, they all said the double tee would have to be special ordered, which means more money. If all else fails then I will put the valve on the long side of the cooler.
Again, I appreciate the help,
Zabba
There is no reason you can put a T in the center of your center pipe of the manifold pointing up at the lid, then use an elbow to bring the whole thing to the valve. I have seen that config before.
That last pipe heading towards the valve will be sitting on top of the manifold. But at least the strongest draw is from the center of the whole contraption, not an end.
would that leave a puddle in the bottom, below the elbow or valve? Or would a syphon be created and collect the rest of the wort? (sorry, not sure if there are actual terms for what i am describing)
like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86138414@N … 8/sizes/l/
I am jealously impressed withthe speed through which you generate these pictures....
If you maintain siphon the whole time, it shouldn't be a problem.
If you are going to fly sparge, it will definately NOT be a problem.
Batch sparging gets tricky if the siphon isn't carefully maintained the whole time.
haha, thanks,
i will most likely try that if the four piece option doesn't fit, especially since adding tons of 1/2 cut slits would mean a hell of a lot more work.
As far as the sparging method, i planned on making a fly sparge with the rest of the 5' of tubing that I have and attach to the cooler lid. I have researched these designs and find them to be a very nice solution to a sparge arm.
zabba wrote:
i planned on making a fly sparge with the rest of the 5' of tubing that I have and attach to the cooler lid. I have researched these designs and find them to be a very nice solution to a sparge arm.
The one factor to make certain of is that however you attach the sparge arm, it mounts perfectly level. Even a small tilt will collect the sparge water in one corner and channel. Because the flow rate coming out is so slow, the arm does not fill completely then sprinkle, it just sprinkles as it receives.
The other thing to consider is how low the arm is suspended, in relation to the mash height. If I fit 32 #s in my tun with medium consistancy (1.25qts / #) my sparge arm sits high enough. If I cram 36 #s in, I have to rig it so my tun lid sits higher (I use wooden spacers) so my arm is not submerged under the mash, but over it to disperse.
Just things to think about as you build. you may not think you will ever max out your tun, then you run into a BW recipe you need to brew, and there you are cramming grains in.
Just batch sparge and you'll be fine, Ha ha.
The only reason you want a 4-way is to ? Why do they have to be in line? Stagger your T's across the center and it'll work just fine but won't be as purdy.
Wild wrote:
The only reason you want a 4-way is to ? Why do they have to be in line? Stagger your T's across the center and it'll work just fine but won't be as purdy.
In theory this may be a more efficient design. I cant draw on flckr like you can zabba, but think of the area between each of your 3 columns, and insert a T in the 2 dead zones at the end. Elbow off those Ts and you will have created a secondary parallel runoff channel, put a T in the middle of that direct to your bulkhead. You will be giving all 3 manifold lines an equal opportunity to fill that outer line.
Pages: 1 2
Search Home Brewing Knowledge Base
Custom Search
|