Immersion Versus Counterflow

Hey all,
Forgive me if this topic has already been discussed. Anywho, I recently acquired (gratis) a 50' roll of 3/8" O.D. copper tubing with the intention of fabricating a double-coil immersion-type chiller. Saw one on e-Bay and it looked pretty neat. However, just yesterday, I saw an article in BYO that showed how to build a homemade counterflow chiller. Hmmm. Interesting. The CF type appears more efficient (in cooling time & water use) but I got to thinking, "What happens to all the cold break. Does it end up in the primary fermenter?" I would think so.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jeff

Right on both accounts. Counter-flows are far more efficient and the all of the cold break ends up in the primary. The pros get around the latter problem by having a whirlpool separator between the chiller and the fermenter.

Quite frankly though, I doubt if I keep much of the cold break out of the fermenter, even though I use a immersion cooler. I tend to run as much of the wort into the fermenter as I can and count on it settling out.

Yes, but it settles to the bottom w/ the trub and the beer gets racked off so it is no big deal. Make the conter flow model. I made the one from BYO and it was easy and entertaining.

Thanks for the input. I am experimenting with the "inverted carboy" (Fermentap) method and want to keep as much crap out of the primary as possible. I read here where the Fermentap (or similar device) has a propensity for getting clogged with trub. That would really suck. Any truth to that? Am I worrying too much?
Wishing I had a homebrew to relax with,
Jeff

BOSTONBREWIN' said:

Thanks for the input. I am experimenting with the "inverted carboy" (Fermentap) method and want to keep as much crap out of the primary as possible. I read here where the Fermentap (or similar device) has a propensity for getting clogged with trub. That would really suck. Any truth to that? Am I worrying too much?
Wishing I had a homebrew to relax with,
Jeff

Click to expand...

the fermentrap is just like a conical fermentor, you must clear the trub in stages to prevent it for compacting and cloging the port. I personally dont use it but I have heard from people that this MUST be done or it will clog.

Go for the counterflow, go for the counterflow...it's cool!

Check out my gallery. I made this following the BYO article (roughly).

david_42 said:

The pros get around the latter problem by having a whirlpool separator between the chiller and the fermenter.

Click to expand...

The whirpool is actually between boil kettle and CFC. The wort from the CFC is usually dumped right into the primary with all the cold break. If all the cold break is removed, the beer will taste "empty". This is what I read at various places so far.

Kai

Kai said:

The whirpool is actually between boil kettle and CFC. The wort from the CFC is usually dumped right into the primary with all the cold break. If all the cold break is removed, the beer will taste "empty". This is what I read at various places so far.

Kai

Click to expand...

If they have a whirlpool seperator between the kettle and CFC then they might be perfroming a hot side aeration which is not good for the brew......hmmm I need to do some more research.

I too am looking to build a wort chiller and was leaning toward the double coil immersion. But according to all the posts, the counter flow is the way to go ??

Really? Honestly ? Is it really true that when the wort runs through the copper via a gravity flow against the flow of water running through the garden hose, that the wort comes out chilled ?? Its THAT effective ??

I have borrowed a buddies immersion (single coil) chiller and it obvioulsy is faster than ice baths, but it still takes 15-20 mintues. I just cant see how a single pass or wort against water equates to chilled wort ? I REALLY want to beleive this cause I would love to improve on the immersion chill times. How would you compare a double coil immersion against the counter flow? Thanks.


MNBugeater

MNBugeater said:

I just cant see how a single pass or wort against water equates to chilled wort ? I REALLY want to beleive this cause I would love to improve on the immersion chill times. How would you compare a double coil immersion against the counter flow?

Click to expand...

It's a matter of volumes...you have a 'tube' of wort passing through water which is continuously being replaced with cool water, so if you look at in crossection you're cooling a very small amount of wort at any given time which may be done very rapidly.

With an immersion chiller you're trying to cool down a large volume of wort (well, basically all of it) all at once with a 'tube' of water. The CFC is like "divide and conquer" for the cold water!

The best option is the CFC. I went from immersion to CFC and what a difference. I can get 5 gallons of boiling wort from boiling to 70 and no more than 5 minutes.

anthrobe said:

If they have a whirlpool seperator between the kettle and CFC then they might be perfroming a hot side aeration which is not good for the brew......hmmm I need to do some more research.

Click to expand...

Didn't read this until now .

When doing the whirpool with hot wort, you have to be careful to not create a vortex that sucks in air. Once Brewery design that I have seen so far, created the whirpool by injecting the hot wort at the bottom of the tank in an angel. This way the rotation is created by the wort flowing in.

Kai

Why is everyone so concerned about the hot break, cold break, and hop debris entering the primary? I thought brewers will still debating as to if it was good or bad or made no difference? To me it makes no difference so long as nothing gets clogged. Last I heard the break and hops may actually provide good nutrients for the yeast... but hey, I am no expert....

If y'all are really so concerned about the debris getting into the primary throught the drain/counterflow then why not just wrap a slotted/drilled copper pipe with some metal screen to create a wort filter?

Can someone clue me in?

Lost said:

Why is everyone so concerned about the hot break, cold break, and hop debris entering the primary? I thought brewers will still debating as to if it was good or bad or made no difference? To me it makes no difference so long as nothing gets clogged. Last I heard the break and hops may actually provide good nutrients for the yeast... but hey, I am no expert....

If y'all are really so concerned about the debris getting into the primary throught the drain/counterflow then why not just wrap a slotted/drilled copper pipe with some metal screen to create a wort filter?

Can someone clue me in?

Click to expand...

My only real concern is if I fill my primary carboy up to the 6 gallon mark I want to be able to rack a solid 5+ gallons of "clear beer" into my secondary. That leaves one gallon of carboy capacity for yeast sediment & trub. So I am careful to leave a majority of the hot/cold break in the kettle. I firmly believe that a "little" trub in the primary is a good thing.
jeff

BOSTONBREWIN' said:

I firmly believe that a "little" trub in the primary is a good thing.
jeff

Click to expand...

This is actually true. If you remove all the trub, the beer may taste empty. This is what the literature says.

I don't like to much trub in the carboy because I only use 5gal carboys and also may want to harvest yeast. There are also concerns that to much trub smudges the yeast. This is not really a concern for the home brewer though. Especially with ale yeast as it doesn't come in contact with the trub before it is done.

Kai