Hot whirlpool and HERMS question

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

fafrd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
117
Reaction score
3
Location
Berkeley
My all-grain brewing has all been with an old-fashioned manual set up, but I am in the planning stages of a 110v electric HLT + propane BK HERMS system and have been reading and learning a great deal on this forum.

I have a question for those with HERMS systems - does anyone use the HERMS coil in their HLT as an immersion chiller to cool the hot wort? The idea would be the following:

a. use pump to whirlpool hot during the last 15 minutes of boil in the BK

b. after cutting flame, wait appropriate time for hot trub cone to form

c. as soon as outside edge of BK is clear, begin transferring hot wort to sterile HLT (leaving hot trub behind)

d. run cold hose water through HERMS coil while recirculating cooling wort through HLT (using prechiller/ice if needed)

e. when target temperature reached, wait appropriate time for cold trub cone to form (if reducing cold trub in fermenter desired)

f. transfer cool clear wort to fermenter

Is there any reason this would not work? Transferring hot wort to the HLT is an extra step, but avoiding the cost of a second IC coil is a savings and separating the hot trub from the cold trub seems like an advantage (leave all of the hot trub out of the fermenter and as much of the cold trub out/in as desired).

Comments from those with HERMS rigs and whirlpooling with immersion chillers greatly appreciated.

-fafrd
 
Seems like it could work. I would just be concerned with the added step in sanitizing, but if you are thorough and do it right I am sure it could work. What size coil are you using as your HERMS. Are you planning on Whrilpooling in both vessels?

EDIT: I am sure you may have read some where on here, but I would look into using a hop spider. I use one for my hop additions and it works like a charm. Using a plate chiller I have yet to have any issues with glogging(knock on wood).
 
Tally350z,

thanks for the response. What I am considering to do for sanitizing is to use the time that the wort is boiling in the BK to bring a gallon or two of water up to a boil in my eHLT so I can recirculate boiling water through the HLT, the pump and all the relevant hoses during the BK boil. That hot liquor in the HLT will need to be transferred out (probably to the then-empty MLT) prior to beginning the recirculation pump for the final 15 minutes of the wort boil.

I'd rather avoid the use of sanitizers other than boiling water until the brew cycle is compete if I can.

It's a few more steps but it allows me to buy one nice coil rather than 2 smaller or cheaper ones. I'm planning on getting a 50' 1/2" SS coil for the 15 gallon HLT (5 and 10 gallon batches).

There are so many creative and experienced brewers on this board, I'm sure someone must have though of this before me - aside from needing to run a sanitation cycle through the HLT and plumbing prior to hot wort transfer, is there any other reason that this would be a bad idea?

And yes, I am planning on whirlpool fittings for both the HLT and BK vessels. I have still not settled on the solution I want use to transfer the cooled wort into the fermentation vessel, so not yet sure if I will have a fixed whirpool return in the BK or a wand that can also be used to transfer into the carboy(s).

-fafrd

p.s. definitely planning for all of my coils to be wide enough to accommodate a hop spider, but still not 100% sold on the need yet - even if they do not reduce hop utilization, they certainly don't improve it, and if whirlpooling hot is as effective as it sounds like it can be, that seems like a simpler way to leave the hops and hot trub behind... Trying to keep all of my options open in the new build, but it's tough when I have never used so much of this new technology before.:confused:
 
The other option is you could just recirculate your wort through your HLT coils from your boil kettle while you have your HLT full of cold water. You'd have to keep refreshing or running cold water from your hose or whatever during the entire recirculation/cooling process. This would reduce your need for sanitizing your HLT.. you could start your recirculation from boil kettle through your empty HLT's coils 20mins prior to starting your cool down.. This will sanitize your HLT's coils. Then you could fill your HLT with water from your cold water source and keep it running to keep it cold in your HLT. If your ground water is warm during the summer months you could add ice to your HLT during the cooling phase as well.
I use a side oriented pick up tube so it siphon's from the side while the trub stays in the middle of the pot.
 
The other option is you could just recirculate your wort through your HLT coils from your boil kettle while you have your HLT full of cold water. You'd have to keep refreshing or running cold water from your hose or whatever during the entire recirculation/cooling process. This would reduce your need for sanitizing your HLT.. you could start your recirculation from boil kettle through your empty HLT's coils 20mins prior to starting your cool down.. This will sanitize your HLT's coils. Then you could fill your HLT with water from your cold water source and keep it running to keep it cold in your HLT. If your ground water is warm during the summer months you could add ice to your HLT during the cooling phase as well.
I use a side oriented pick up tube so it siphon's from the side while the trub stays in the middle of the pot.

This was the first method I had tried with my HERMS coil and it is very inefficient in cooling. It took me almost an hour to get boil wort to 80-85*even with 10lbs of Ice in HLT
 
Mount your hex coil to a lid that fits both your HLT and BK. That way you can move the HEX to the BK 15 minutes before flame out and use it like a conventional IC.

Dropping out the hot and cold trub separately is unnecessary.

Edit: This also avoids drilling additional holes in your HLT, as much fun as that is.
 
Thanks to all for the feedback on my original question.

I haven't bought anything for my new rig yet except the pots, so I appreciate these inputs while I still have time to modify my plan.

Taking a step back, if I've understood what I have read on this forum correctly, the primary goal in all of this wort cooling technology is to get the temperature of the entire volume of wort down below the threshold where DMS and loss of hop oils are a concern as quickly as possible.

I have no idea how 'fast' is fast enough - seems like some brag about being able to get the entire volume of wort to pitching in under 5 min, while many others seem to target under 15 minutes (opinions appreciated :)

So I suppose one concern with my original idea is that the time hot wort is being transferred to the HLT is just that much more time into the whole equation. My HLT will probably be about 3 feet higher than my BK, so pumping through 1/2" hose with a March pump full on, I'm assuming it is going to take 5-10 minutes to pump a 10 gallon batch (again, no experience with pumps, so any experience / opinions appreciated).

If I am right about this, the transfer time kind of kills the entire concept (while getting the transfer done in 1 or 2 minutes might still be viable, but seems unrealistic from what I have read using standard pumps and 1/2" hoses).

So I am kind of coming full-circle on this and thinking about building a large/fast stainless CFC rather than going IC.

My guess is that if I use 25 feet of 1/2" O.D. 0.02"W SS tubing inside of 1" I.D. Hose, that CFC could probably bring hot wort down to close to pitching temperature at a flow rate of at least 1gpm (and possibly 2gpm) using a March pump at full bore. This would equate to a total hot-wort phase of only 5-10 minutes.

It also seems like a high-flow-rate and good-enough efficiency CFC would use less tap water than any other high-speed cooling solution (which is attractive to me).

A separate CFC would obviously mean more expense and one more thing to clean, but the stainless coil is an expense I am going to have anyway for an IC (in fact, was planning on a 50' IC, so coil cost for the CFC could be less if I can get away with 25'), and 25' of hot water hose is only about $70, so total incremental cost is probably under $100.

Of course, this will mean cold-break in the fermentation vessel, but unclear if that is actually a good or a bad thing, and if I ever get motivated with keeping some/most of the cold-break out, I can always go back to my idea of using a sterilized HLT as a cold-wort whirlpool vessel before transferring to the fermentation vessels.

I realize that I have kind of hijacked my own thread and should probably start a separate post if I want any feedback on the idea of a high-flow CFC with 1/2" SS tubing, but if any of you HERMS brewers that have been kind enough to read through this thread also chill with active CFC (pump, not gravity), any advise or experience greatly appreciated...

-fafrd
 
I think that sounds like a good idea. I don't have experience with CFC so I will defer comment on that part.

I will say that I don't believe chilling in under 5 minutes is absolutely important other than it saves you time (and maybe waste water).

But there has been recent info suggesting that hop contact time with hot wort (but less than 170) greatly affects hop flavor and aroma for the good.

In fact I have adjusted my process for hoppy beers to a 20 min steep/whirlpool at around 150 to 165 f. I recirc the wort through my plate chiller at full bore until the entire volume drops to that temp, then start my steep.

I'm sure you could do this with a CFC (just turn down the chill water flow), its just another thing to think about!
 
My all-grain brewing has all been with an old-fashioned manual set up
I used to have a whole wall of ribbons won the "old-fashioned way." The gadget-geek in me loves the idea of automation, but don't ever think for a second that more technology means better beer. The brewer makes better beer; the technology allows him to apply his experience more efficiently.

I have a question for those with HERMS systems - does anyone use the HERMS coil in their HLT as an immersion chiller to cool the hot wort?
The first thought I have is that this will introduce even more waste to the process. If you are making 1/2 BBL batches of Bud-Miller-Coors clones then maybe not a big deal. If you are making a 5-gallon batch of Barleywine then every cup of wort is expensive. The second thought is that it potentially introduces aeration at a time when you really want to minimize that. If you are going to move hot wort it should be sealed and through a chiller.

CFC (or maybe those new-fangled plate chillers) is the way to go if you are building a new system IMHO. It was state of the art 20 years ago in homebrewing and I don't think a better way has been discovered to rapidly chill wort in a sanitary manner.

All this from a guy who was on sabbatical and only just returning; but beer is 3000 years old give or take and things don't change that much. :)
 
I will add that hose water in the CFC doesn't work too well most of the year. I use hose water in my CFC to get the wort to about 90. I have a tee on my CFC to also have a small submersible pump in a small kiddie pool of ice water. i freeze 4 milk jugs and use it for my ice. I can chill to lager pitching temps in about 15 minutes. Works great in even the summer when my tap water isn't cold enough to get to ale pitch temps efficiently.
 
I will say that I don't believe chilling in under 5 minutes is absolutely important other than it saves you time (and maybe waste water).

Thanks for the helpful feedback kpr121. I think I read in some article where DMS increases at a rate of 30% per hour in hot standing wort, so 5 minutes would equate to an increase of 2.5%. Seems pretty low to me but I just have no reference point to know if 2.5% (or even 10%) increase in DMS is something that will be detectable or not (the 'corn-flakes' smell).

There has been recent info suggesting that hop contact time with hot wort (but less than 170) greatly affects hop flavor and aroma for the good.

In fact I have adjusted my process for hoppy beers to a 20 min steep/whirlpool at around 150 to 165 f. I recirc the wort through my plate chiller at full bore until the entire volume drops to that temp, then start my steep.

I'm sure you could do this with a CFC (just turn down the chill water flow), its just another thing to think about!

The idea of 'warm hopping' is very interesting - if you have a link I'd love to read more. I suppose your modified process implies a 10% increase in DMS levels, so if you are not detecting any problems from that it probably means increases in the low single digits are fine [recognizing that perception of DMS depends on beer style, and is apparently most evident when brewing low-medium gravity all-malt lagers, so between your additional hops and your beer stlye, you may not be able to notice increased DMS anyway...]

I don't plan on doing a lot of lagers (at least for now :D) but would like a rig that makes that possible when the time comes.

-fafrd
 
I used to have a whole wall of ribbons won the "old-fashioned way." The gadget-geek in me loves the idea of automation, but don't ever think for a second that more technology means better beer. The brewer makes better beer; the technology allows him to apply his experience more efficiently.

All this from a guy who was on sabbatical and only just returning; but beer is 3000 years old give or take and things don't change that much. :)

Sounds like we have a few things in common LBussy - my sabbatical from brewing has been more than 20 years. There are a few reasons I want to build a new rig and bring a bit of new technology into my process:

1/ going from 5 to 20 gallon batches (brewing with friends) - my old set-up can only do 5 gallons

2/ I'm deep into barbeque now and use a Barbeque Guru (PID) for the overnight brisket smokes, so while maintaining mash temperatures was annoying and stressful when I was a grad student, not it just seems like a waste of time

3/ I never tried step mashing before but want to try my hand at controlling the amount of fermentable and non-fermentable sugars in my wort - to have any hope at learning that and understanding the effect on the resulting brew, it seems like repeatability will be key.

Of course, all of that being said, as I continue down the path of planning this new rig, I keep glancing over at my old gear that I just got out of storage and realize that the horizon to my next brew session is fading into the distance...


The first thought I have is that this will introduce even more waste to the process. If you are making 1/2 BBL batches of Bud-Miller-Coors clones then maybe not a big deal. If you are making a 5-gallon batch of Barleywine then every cup of wort is expensive. The second thought is that it potentially introduces aeration at a time when you really want to minimize that. If you are going to move hot wort it should be sealed and through a chiller.

Yeah, it will waste some wort in the lines. I think aeration could probably be avoided but the transfer is going to mean more time at high temperature (more DMS) and for that reason, I think I've convinced myself to head in a different direction...

CFC (or maybe those new-fangled plate chillers) is the way to go if you are building a new system IMHO. It was state of the art 20 years ago in homebrewing and I don't think a better way has been discovered to rapidly chill wort in a sanitary manner.

More evidence that we have much in common, because I have come to this same conclusion :). I built a CFC for my old rig (probably 25 years ago), and it was a very effective chiller. Getting the siphon started was a PITA and with only 20' of 3/8" copper it is not going to cut it for 10 gallon batches.

So I think I am going to add a pump and go to 1/2" stainless and will also probably recirculate back into the BK to get the entire volume of wort below 140 as quickly as possible before cooling into the fermenter.

Longer means more efficient in terms of heat transfer but longer also means slower in terms of pump thru-put, so I am trying to get an idea of the rate at which a March pump can pump through 25 or 50 feet of 1/2" OD (0.46" ID) stainless tubing to decide what length I should shoot for.

Back to my original request I made for inputs from HERMS brewers, if you or anyone has any idea of the max flow rate that a March pump can pump hot liquor through a 1/2" HERMS coil, I would appreciate that data.

-fafrd
 
I will add that hose water in the CFC doesn't work too well most of the year. I use hose water in my CFC to get the wort to about 90. I have a tee on my CFC to also have a small submersible pump in a small kiddie pool of ice water. i freeze 4 milk jugs and use it for my ice. I can chill to lager pitching temps in about 15 minutes. Works great in even the summer when my tap water isn't cold enough to get to ale pitch temps efficiently.

Dog House Brew, here in the Bay Area we have 55 deg tap water in the winter and 65 deg tap water in the summer, so some boosting is probably going to be needed at least in summer. I have my old CFC and should be able to either use that as a prechiller or could directly pump ice water through the hose of the new CFC if I am ever making a summer lager...

I suppose the main thing is to gain some experience (and data) as to how close cold-wort-out-temps can come to cold-tap-water-in-temps. I'm hoping that by going to a 50' length I can get that delta down pretty low without needing to sacrifice the too much in terms of flow rate.

Any inputs on you CFC design (tube diameter, length, pumped or gravity, estimated wort and water flow rates) would be appreciated.

-fafrd
 
I have a HERMS with three 15.5-gal keggles and for the first several batches I pumped the hot wort through the coils of the HLT with cold water and 60# pounds of ice in the HLT. This method worked fairly well to cool the wort but I was using a lot of ice. I wasn't making enough ice ahead of time and was paying ~$20+ of ice for each 10-12 gallon batch. I realized I could've already bought a plate chiller. So I got a plate chiller and it has been way easier ever since. No more pumping sanitizing solution through my 5/8" HLT coils and the resulting losses into the fermenter (though I used to pump a sanitizer solution through the coils after the wort to try to get most of the wort out of the coils and into the fermenter; then I'd re-divert the sanitizer to a bucket once I saw the lines run clear).

I got an inexpensive yet very effective 40-plate from dudadiesel dot com and it has been a charm ever since. I don't even bother using a pump, just gravity fed from my single tier into the fermenter in less than 10min for a 12-gallon batch.

Go with a plate chiller. Coupled with a nylon hop strainer, there is very little hop debris. I've considered pumping the cooled wort back into the boil pot and cooling the entire batch to leave the cold break in the boil kettle, but don't see the need. One thing with the plate chiller, I've only used it in the winter here in VA and have been able to use a very low flow rate (I think I only use ~20 or 30 gallons of chill water). I may have to use my old small immersion chiller in the summer as a pre-chiller.

Hope that helps
 
This is very helpful, nvrstck, thanks.

I've been rethinking everything since starting this post, including plate chillers. In fact, I just traded email with dudeisal.com this morning. Can you tell me exactly which 40-plate chiller you bought from them? Was it the B-23A 40-plate chiller?

10 minutes sounds pretty darn good. Sounds like 2-3gpm flow rate for the water (20-30 gallons in 10 minutes) and 1.2gpm wort flow rate (12 gallons in 10 minutes).

Could you estimate water in temp, wort out and wort in temps?

I also would appreciate to learn more about nylon hop strainers - is there any reference you can point me to see what this looks like?

Do you sanitize the plate chiller by recirculating through it before running cold tap water through to begin chilling? Do you whirlpool and try to leave the hot break in the BK (or does your hop strainer take care of that as well)??

And finally, can you point me to your source of 5/8" tubing for your HERMS coil? Was it copper or SS?

The only concern I have with plate chillers are that they cannot be broken down and cleaned - what is your cleaning sequence and do you have any concerns? (I guess that is yet one more question for you :))

thanks again,

-fafrd
 
Glad you found it helpful fafrd. You're welcome!

I was wrong about the 40-plate. It is actually a 20-plate: "B3-23A 20 Plate Beer Wort Garden Hose Chiller" Great purchase for $105!

If I used one of my pumps I could cool it down even faster but it goes so fast already I don't need to. 2-3gpm and 1.2gpm sounds about right for the flow rates. Water-in temp was probably ~55F, wort in was ~209.9F, wort-out was ~55F when I had the water flow rate too fast. I was able to adjust the water flow rate to hold the desired wort temp of 65F or 75F, depending on which beer I was brewing. I taped a stick-on thermometer to the end of the silicon tubing coming out of the chiller so I have a better idea of the temperature (it's a little sluggish but it works). I intend to slide a ~6" piece of copper into the end of the tubing and stick the stick-on thermometer to the copper for a quicker output temperature reading into fermenter. I'm glad I did a bit of research and found those chillers since they are supposedly better than the shirron chillers. I couldn't see spending twice that for a blichmann.

Google Nylon Hop Strainer to find the bags like I use. I forget where I got mine but it essentially a $3 nylon paint strainer bag that as a ~6" diamter plastic ring in the top to keep it open instead of a drawstring that most have. I zip-tie it to the top of my boil kettle and then just dump hops in whenever needed without having to try to untie and open a hop bag. I use mostly pellet hops and it has kept my boil kettle 95% free of hops - since almost all of the hops stay in the nylon bag except some fine hop gunk.

I do sanitize the plate chiller. I cut a hole in the side/bottom of a 5-gallon bucket and put a plastic igloo cooler drain fitting in the hole that has a garden hose male thread on the outside. I attached a ~1.5' piece of tubing to it that has a quick disconnect on the end. My plate chiller has ~1' pieces of tubing on both the wort inlet and wort outlet and both have QDs. I hook it to the bucket and let starsan run through it for a min or so just using gravity...again, I used a pump the first time but it is not necessary so it is easier to just skip the pump and gravity drain. That sanitizing bucket has been a big help too since now I use it to wash, sanitize and prime both of my pumps. And for cleaning the plate chiller it is the same thing....though I tend to hook the bucket to a pump and recirc PBW though the pump and plate chiller in both directions. After the PBW, I just take it to the sink and shoot tap water into all 4 chiller holes and rinse thoroughly. My sink has a garden hose attachment that I can use hot/cold water so I flush it with hot water and a pretty good flow rate with lots of turbulence. I'm thinking about mounting my plate chiller to my brew stand but it makes it so easy to flush when it isn't hard-mounted and I can just take it to the sink for final rinsing.

I've never had much luck whirlpooling, even from my extract days of stirring like crazy on the stove. The break material always seems to end up being siphoned into the fermenter. I made my own bazooka tube using two pieces of SS-braided water heater water-line tubing. My "torus bazooka" (see pic) is inside my boil kettle on the drain that goes to my plate chiller. Using the torus bazooka alone without the hop strainer/bag wasn't very effective and a lot of break and hops went into the fermenter, but now when used with the hop strainer, most of the hot break material is left in the boil kettle.

I had the 5/8" copper laying around but I think you can get 50' rolls of it at your local hardware store.

Todd

IMG_2405sm.jpg
 
I do sanitize the plate chiller. I cut a hole in the side/bottom of a 5-gallon bucket and put a plastic igloo cooler drain fitting in the hole that has a garden hose male thread on the outside. I attached a ~1.5' piece of tubing to it that has a quick disconnect on the end. My plate chiller has ~1' pieces of tubing on both the wort inlet and wort outlet and both have QDs. I hook it to the bucket and let starsan run through it for a min or so just using gravity...again, I used a pump the first time but it is not necessary so it is easier to just skip the pump and gravity drain. That sanitizing bucket has been a big help too since now I use it to wash, sanitize and prime both of my pumps. Todd

Thanks again Todd - this is very helpful. So just to be clear, you perform this StarSan flush just before you hook up the chiller to the BK? And after you are done running Star San through it for a minute or so, do you rinse it off with sterilized water before connecting to the BK?

On another subject, do you recirculate your mash? Everything I have managed to read strongly poo-poos the idea of using a plate chiller for recirculating mash, but with a good enough screen/filter to keep grain particles out (or not putting the PC into the loop until after the wort has cleared) I don't understand why that idea would not work. Any thoughts from your experience with the B3-23A?

-fafrd

p.s. I've been trading emails with Brian at DudaDiesal all day and he seems to think that the chiller would work for wort recirculation as long as some measures are taken to avoid getting large particles (>1mmD) in there. That being said, he doesn't specifically know of any customers who are doing mash recirculation through one of his plate chillers... Any thoughts from what you have experienced?
 
I sanitize the chiller with starsan during the boil (and that is when I sanitize my fermenter(s) too). No need to rinse, I usually turn it vertical so the starsan can drain out. Starsan won't harm the yeast. Back when I was pumping the hot wort throught the HLT coil, I would pump starsan through the coils to sanitize before letting my hot wort go through to be chilled. One time I forgot to drain the starsan from the coils to a waste container and I pumped almost a gallon of starsan into the fermenter before the cooled wort started coming out. No problems with that batch whatsoever...tasted great and no off-flavors. They say starsan is a yeast nutrient at low concentrations - it didn't hurt my batch at almost 10% of the batch by volume.

I do recirculate continuously during the mash (i.e., fly sparge) but only through the coils in the HLT. I'm not sure why you would use a PC to recirculate mash, unless you are trying to use the Hot Liquor on the water side of the PC to heat the wort on the wort-side of the PC. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Recircing through the tubes inside the HLT allows me to control the temperature precisely. I have a bypass valve on the HLT such that when the valve is OPEN, the wort in the mash bypasses the HLT coils. When the valve is SHUT it all goes through the coils and comes out of the HLT coils at the same temperature as the HLT water. I always have this valve throttled to keep the HLT coil output temp right where I need it....usually ~152F +/- 4F. Instead of trying to regulate the temperature of my Hot Liqour, I let it go all the way up to my Mash Out (~170F) and I just throttle the bypass open as the temp increases to keep my output temp where I want it. One thing I am working on adding is a proportional valve in place of the bypass and hooking that up to a RTD reading the outlet temp and PID. That way I'll punch in a temp for the HLT coil output and the PID will throttle the proportional valve to hold the temperature right there. But I digress...I'd only use the plate chiller to cool boiling wort.

I just go to the PS part of your message. So it seems like you are trying to avoid having two sets of coils or a HLT coil and a chiller. that would save some money if you could. I rely heavily on the false bottom in my Mash Tun, but even with that there are still some big particles that come through. The QDs that I have on all my keggles and pumps end always get grain debris trapped in them. I always see it when I am cleaning up. I think if you tried to filter your mash tun more than a false bottom, you'd end up with stuck sparges all the time as your filter/screen got plugged.

Maybe the arrangement pic of my system will help. See attached.

BrewBQ.jpg
 
Nvrstck,

envy is a common emotion on this board, isn't it :)

Seriously, that is one cool-looking set-up.

That is helpful information regarding StarSan - I have not used it before so knowing SatrSan residue can be left on equipment and it will be sterile but not interfere with yeast viability or beer flavors open up many new process options...

And your idea of mixing 'at-temperature' (or slightly below temperature) mash liquor with mash-out temperature mash liquor from recirculating in the HLT is a new one and I will need to mull that over. It is an interesting way to maintain temperature control over a range, but I would be concerned that it requires more attention and in addition, a quart or two of mash liquor is going to always be held at mash-out temps (probably not a big concern, but still...). The idea od a adding a proportional valve to automate the process seems very cool - please keep me posted.

I found another brewer who is using a plate chiller for mash recirculation. If you put an 0.5mm filer in-line before the chiller (like this one here: http://www.brewershardware.com/FILTER1.html), it apparently works fine to keep the plate chiller from getting clogged by any random mash debris.

My motivations are to have one serious temperature control + filter solution in my rig if I can get away with it. It would be used for mash recirculation (warming the mash liquor when needed) in a first phase and for wort chilling in a second phase. The HLT becomes a hot liquor reservoir used to heat the plate chiller when needed. One good plate chiller and a good filter probably cost the same or less than one HERMS coil plus another IC, CFC, or plate chiller and another advantage of investing in a good in-line filter is that it can also help with filtering out the hot break and trub and speed up the whirlpool settling / cone formation time.

I've never used a plate chiller before, but it's compactness and the fact that it can be cleaned by baking in an over are other attractive aspects to me - the only drawback I have seen (for both mash recirculation and wort chilling) is the possibility that a plate chiller can get clogged. With a good filter, it seems like this drawback can be avoided (at the cost of more $$$), so that is the direction I am leaning.

Of course, I've never used any of this new technology before, which is why opinions and comments from those like you that actually have experience with this stuff and with these rigs is so helpful for me :)

-fafrd
 
Thanks fafrd. I've had the pig cooker with side burner for a while, then needed a place to put my brewing setup so using it as a "BrewBQ" was a logical choice. You'd think the two were made for each other.

The HLT slowly increases up to mash-out temp over the duration of the mash so it's typically between 150 and 170. I usually monitor the output temperature of the HLT and Mash temp for the duration of the mash and usually throttle the HLT bypass several times. I can usually hold the temps pretty steady but this seems like the best place in my process to add some automation so I can set it and forget it. I think that having the Mash Liquor at higher temps doesn't have an effect on the mash. The temperature to be concerned with is the actual mash temperature (i.e., temperature of the grains).

One thing to think about if you decide to use a plate chiller with your HLT for mashing is the types of connectors you use or your piping arrangement. I'd like to add some hard-piped SS tubing but since my system is on a trailer, I'm concerned with leaving the tubing on the trailer when I'm towing it and the keggles aren't there. That's why I opted for silicone tubing and polysulfone QD's. I've liked them so far but learned pretty quickly to keep a couple boxes of the $0.02 o-rings on-hand because they wear out fast. They usually last a ~few brews before they start getting loose and pinched. They're super easy to swap out...just takes a couple seconds. Creating my fancy MS Word system drawing was really helpful in thinking in terms of what I needed to make the connections work as well as minimizing the number of times I have to swap stuff around. The configuration I use for chilling is not shown but it is pretty simple, So if you're going to use a plate chiller for double duty, you have to be able to swap it around quickly, clean it quickly and you don't want to have to get out any tools to do that.

That's one of the great things about brewing, you can be really creative and make the system work for you. I looked at a lot of system designs and made my own tweaks to come up with this one and it works well for me....and of course is never quite done.

-Todd
 
Thanks for the helpful inputs, Todd. Mine is not on a trailer, but I have FatBoy and go through my fair share of pig and cow each summer, so it looks like we have something else in common:)

What you have described is exactly where I am with my system build - full step-by-step sequence with the planned plumbing configuration so I can simulate each required reconfiguration in advance.

I'm thinking it will be set up for one configuration that gets me all the way to lautered/sparged wort into the brew kettle (reconfiguring valves, of course). So now I have to figure out the cleaning sequence for the plate chiller and filter, how to reconfigure them into the plumbing, and the in-place sanitizing sequence prior to flame out and chilling. Another brewer is sanitizing in place with near-boiling liquor from the HLT and I am going to try to do something similar. So the reconfiguration sequence after sparge and before chill would be something like:

1/ break down mash plumbing, rinse and clean plate chiller and in-line filter

2/reconnect to pump and plumbing for chilling configuration (still debating between filter-after-pump configuration and filter-before pump configuration - will hopefully have the flexibility to try both...

3/ sanitize-in-place using near-boiling liquor from HLT

4/ begin recirculation / whirlpool (bypassing filter and chiller)

5/ let trub cone settle as needed and then begin chilling through trub filter and plate chiller

you know way more about this stuff than me, so if you see anything in this idea that you think would be a problem, I'd appreciate that input before I invest in all of the equipment...

On connectors, I appreciate the heads-up about having spare gaskets on hand. I am planning to use CAM-locks everywhere except the few places I will have to use tri-clover because of equipment requirements (the in-line filter only supports tri-clover, and using an adaptor to go from tri-clover to CAMlock seems silly).

I think that if I plan on reconfiguring the plumbing halfway through the boil, all of the mash plumbing should have cooled enough that switching a few hoses around should be pretty easy to manage...

What solution do you use to redirect the hot wort into the fermentation vessel, how to you sterilize whatever tubing is used for that, and what solution are you using for aerating the cooled wort?

-fafrd
 
If your using chugger/march/other magnetic drive pumps it best to have as little resistance as possible on the "in" side, so try to have filter/chiller/long runs of tubing after the pump.
 
If your using chugger/march/other magnetic drive pumps it best to have as little resistance as possible on the "in" side, so try to have filter/chiller/long runs of tubing after the pump.

thanks kpr121 - in general I know that and that would be a reason to place the filter immediately after the pump (better for the pump / better flow rate).

From the filter + plate chiller thread, the potential problem with having the filter after the pump is that it is apparently much more likely to get clogged early on. To paraphrase: 'very little material in the filter overall, but a single particle clogging virtually every hole in the filter' . It sounds like, with the higher flow rate through the filter when it is placed after the pump, there is a higher likelihood of individual particles getting stuck in the filter holes one by one (as opposed to the entire filter being packed with crud and clogging because it is plugged).

The other advantage of having the filter before the pump is that it keeps any mash particles out of the pump - probably not big deal, but a plus nonetheless...

If the target flow rates can be maintained with the filter before the pump, that sounds like the better configuration - if not, filter after pump is the only option. I will architect my system so that I can experiment with both configurations.

No one seems to indicate that the resistance of a filter on the pump intake is bad for the pump itself - do you have any reason to believe it is?

Since the idea is to use this combination for mash recirculation, the flow rate will probably be limited to 1gpm or at most 1.5gpm, limited by the mash rather than any of the other elements in the system...

-fafrd
 
I don't have any specific evidence or sources, its just what I've read.

As far as wort flow speed and all that, that should be controlled with a ball valve on the output of the pump. It doesnt make sense to factor that into your decision for putting the filter before or after the pump.
 
I would definitely place the filter after the pump. March pumps are not self-priming and can be a real pain to get primed. You don't want any restrictions in the flow path to make it even harder. You also don't want to have valves to throttle the flow on the inlet for the same reason...the pump will quickly suck the line dry then just start trying to pump air and will stop moving water. Those pumps can run dry for hours without hurting them, but the last thing you want to do during your brew day is have pumps running dry because you can't get them primed.

The rest of your sequence looks pretty good.

As far as connectors, tri-clover is the way to go if you can swing the added cost. I have threaded fittings and plastic Qds but will one day be brewing with all tri-clover (sanitary) fittings. You may be able to configure it such that it is all hard tubing and you don't need too many QDs or tri-clovers.

When I am cooling the wort and going into fermenter, i have a very simple setup. My chiller has a foot of tubing with QD in the inlet and ~3' of tubing on the outlet. I gravity drain starsan through it for a minute or so and into a waste bucket. Then when that is done, I drain chiller and connect the inlet to the outlet of my boil kettle then just gravity drain through chiller and out of the 3' silicone tubing into a fermenter. To oxygenate, I use a small O2 bottle and a SS diffusion stone (2 micron, I think) and stick that on the end of a piece of plastic tubing to keep the stone from floating up and hit it for a couple minutes.
 
As far as wort flow speed and all that, that should be controlled with a ball valve on the output of the pump. It doesnt make sense to factor that into your decision for putting the filter before or after the pump.

Yes, for sure - valve at output of pump no matter where the filter is located...

-fafrd
 
I would definitely place the filter after the pump. March pumps are not self-priming and can be a real pain to get primed. You don't want any restrictions in the flow path to make it even harder. You also don't want to have valves to throttle the flow on the inlet for the same reason...the pump will quickly suck the line dry then just start trying to pump air and will stop moving water. Those pumps can run dry for hours without hurting them, but the last thing you want to do during your brew day is have pumps running dry because you can't get them primed.

I agree you do not want the filter placed before the pump if there is any change that it adds enough of a restriction to seriously inhibit pump priming and/or can cause the pump to suck the line dry...

On the other hand, if the filtet is only being used as a 'last line of defense' and if flow rate through the filter is high enough, the advantage from what I have read (others with this same filter) is that the filter apparently clogs much more quickly/easily if it is placed after the pup than if it is placed before. While this almost certainly means that the filter must be introducing some additional restriction on the flow, I suppose the only way to know which of these two configurations is better is through trial and error (a others have done)...


When I am cooling the wort and going into fermenter, i have a very simple setup. My chiller has a foot of tubing with QD in the inlet and ~3' of tubing on the outlet. I gravity drain starsan through it for a minute or so and into a waste bucket. Then when that is done, I drain chiller and connect the inlet to the outlet of my boil kettle then just gravity drain through chiller and out of the 3' silicone tubing into a fermenter. To oxygenate, I use a small O2 bottle and a SS diffusion stone (2 micron, I think) and stick that on the end of a piece of plastic tubing to keep the stone from floating up and hit it for a couple minutes.

This is helpful, thanks (and simple). So oxygenation is done after chilling and transfer to fermentation vessel is complete, correct (separate step)? Do you do anything special to sanitize the diffusion stone and oxygenation tubing? Just soak them in Starsan as well? How high above fermentation vessel do you have the BK located and what kind of gravity-driven flow rate do you think you are getting?

thanks,

-fafrd
 
Back
Top