Jamil's whirlpool chiller, with CFC?

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.

eccsynd

control freak
HBT Supporter
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
172
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
I love Jamil's Whirlpool immersion chiller idea. From what I gather, the perks are killing two birds with one stone: chilling and whirlpool/trub removal.

Here's my question. Does it have to be an Immersion Chiller? Why couldn't you use a different type of chiller, like a CFC or even plate? I'd like to use a CFC, but recirculate to get the whirlpool effect. The reason that I prefer a CFC is that I'll be using it as HERMs a heat exchanger as well, so one less piece of equipment means less to clean, and possibly money savings.

Seems like most people run the hot wort through the CFC and directly into the fermentor. Wouldn't recirculation be beneficial, to get a whirlpool going? Am I missing something?
 
Yes your idea would work well and you would receive the added benefit of chilling the full wort volume faster. This gives you more retention of volatile hop compounds near the end of the boil for better aroma and flavor.
 
I have a plate chiller and recirculate back into the kettle. This seems like it would cool it quicker, but in reality, I timed it each way and it was basically the same. I suppose someone who knows more about thermodynamics could explain it, but it kinda makes sense bcs you are using the same amount of chiller water*. I do a hybrid now - I recirculate and capture this chill water for cleaning - usually gets to just under 100 or so. Then I use my MLT to recirculate ice water through the chiller as I drain into fermenter, I trade out frozen water bottles in it. This usually gets me into the 60's in about 15 minutes total chill time.

*this may be because a plate chiller is more efficient than an immersion chiller anyway??? (ie maximum surface area)
 
I am still working out some of the kinks, but here is what I did with my last batch.
I have a 1/2" CFC that can move a huge amount of hot wort at full pump speed, but I have to restrict the flow to get maximum chilling (Full discussion to follow someday when I get around to it)
I ran it full speed through the CFC into my HLT and let the whirlpool form there. That got the full 10 gallons down to about 85 deg in less than 5 min.
I got an OK whirlpool but need to build a little jet (a la Jamil) to get a really good one.
I then ran it through the CFC again into the two carboys at 65 deg. I think with some tweaking I can get the whole chilling process down to 15-20 minutes for a 10 gallon batch and have the whirlpool. That would include a non-DMS-forming break in the middle to let the cone form.
Cheers
 
I have a plate chiller and tried recirculating back into the kettle with a pump. This process takes MUCH LONGER (and far more cooling water) than pumping straight into the fermenter. When I pump straight from the boil to the fermenter without recirculating, I can cool the entire boil in less than five minutes. When I recirculate, it takes over 30 minutes!

I would have expected recirculation to take slightly longer, for two reasons: 1) the boil kettle has to be cooled along with the wort when recirculating, but not when going straight. 2) the pump has a greater head to work against when recirculating than when going to the fermenter. But both of these reasons should not account for a 7x increase in cooling time!

I don't know what I'm doing wrong here. I tried it with plain water to remove the hops and sugars from the equation, and I got the exact same result. I have a Thrumometer on the output of the plate chiller, so I know that the boiling liquid is being cooled to 65F from the start. The plate chiller is not even being used to its full potential: I can tell because most of the chiller is not even hot. When the chiller is being taxed (i.e. because the cooling water's temperature is too high), the chiller gets hot. But in my whirlpool I don't even have to turn my tap up very far in order to get the boiling liquid down to 65F.

I suspect that my recirculation pump might be underpowered. I am certainly not getting enough whirlpool action from it to create a cone in the fermenter. I have to manually stir in order to get that.
 
Until recently I recirc'ed with a CFC. It works just fine. The major downside, IMO, is that you're considerably restricting the flowrate of the pump forcing it through 25+ feet of tubing, which in turn reduces your whirlpool speed, which also reduces the effectiveness of the whirlpool. It's still effective enough to get a decent trub cone in my setup.

I'm considering getting a significantly more powerful pump just for whirlpooling. If you can really get that wort moving for a few minutes, the trub cone is impressive.
 
This may be a dumb question, but why couldn't you just get the whirlpool going with with your pump and then once your trub has settled, chill with your cfc as you normally do?
 
I pump through a CFC back to the kettle in a continuous loop and I have no trouble at all getting a good whirlpool going. My DIY CFC presents very little restriction to the flow as it is made from 20 ft of 1/2" ID rigid pipe. There seems to be some confusion about the whirlpool term. IMO, there are two distinct objectives with this method. One would be to cool the entire volume of wort as rapidly as possible and the second to form a debris cone. The chilling procedure requires that the wort be continuously and well mixed for optimum performance. Once chilled, you only need to stop pumping and allow the debris to settle. It's best to allow 15-30 minutes for this to happen. My point is that whirlpooling for chilling purposes is really just keeping the wort mixing while whirlpooling for debris cone formation is a separate operation and the debris won't drop out completely until the whirlpool has slowed to a stop.
 
That makes good sense. . .

My concern is that I have a 3/8" ID CFC, which I think will be a bit restrictive to get a good whirlpool going. Please chime in if I'm mistaken here.

So, is there any disadvantage to whirpooling without the CFC, letting it settle and then simply running the wort through my CFC into the fermenter as usual?

-Chris
 
That makes good sense. . .

My concern is that I have a 3/8" ID CFC, which I think will be a bit restrictive to get a good whirlpool going. Please chime in if I'm mistaken here.

So, is there any disadvantage to whirpooling without the CFC, letting it settle and then simply running the wort through my CFC into the fermenter as usual?

-Chris

Yes, the 3/8" ID CFC will be considerably restrictive. There's no getting around that unless you use a pump with more power.

You can certainly do as you suggest and whirlpool prior to chilling, but you will be losing some of the volatile hop essences while the wort remains hot. That's really the point of chilling as fast as possible to 140F or below. This can be more important for some beer styles than others, but it can do no harm for any style. My goal is to preserve as much hop flavor and aroma as possible with a fast chill. The idea behind circulating back to the kettle is to cool the entire volume quickly. Running the wort through a chiller to the fermenters leaves much of the hot wort waiting in the kettle and the hop volatiles will continue to evaporate.

You don't need to rely on a high flow rate to get a whirlpool going. Simply use a long handled spoon after you have adequately chilled the wort. Just give it a few good swirls to get the wort spinning. It doesn't take much and as I mentioned, the debris doesn't really drop out completely until after the wort has slowed to a stop and then some.
 
Thanks for the info.

So, you recommend recirculating through my CFC and using a spoon to help get a good whirlpool started?
 
This may be a dumb question, but why couldn't you just get the whirlpool going with with your pump and then once your trub has settled, chill with your cfc as you normally do?

This is what I plan on doing once I get a kettle with a whirlpool port. Although I suppose I could rig something up over the side of my current kettle. How do commercial brewers do this?
 
is it best to have you wort return for whirlpooling at the bottom or top of the wort level?

my first brew is going to be on Sunday and I have yet to make my return hole and solder up the coupling in my keggle.

I'll start with 5 gallon batches, but eventually step up to 10 gallon AG batches.


I have a pump and the plan was to go from flame out to CFC and back into the keggle to get a whirlpool going. once trub cone is formed from keggle to Better bottle.


-=Jason=-
 
is it best to have you wort return for whirlpooling at the bottom or top of the wort level?

my first brew is going to be on Sunday and I have yet to make my return hole and solder up the coupling in my keggle.

I'll start with 5 gallon batches, but eventually step up to 10 gallon AG batches.


I have a pump and the plan was to go from flame out to CFC and back into the keggle to get a whirlpool going. once trub cone is formed from keggle to Better bottle.


-=Jason=-

IMO, it is best to position the wort return port so that it will be submerged with any batch size. Inside the kettle, I use an elbow to direct the flow against the side of the kettle and upward toward the surface. This helps to prevent temperature stratification of the wort. IOW, it keeps it mixing well.

Your plan appears to be sound. IMO, the whirlpool while chilling procedure is primarily about keeping the wort mixed up well. The debris cone won't really form well until the whirlpool begins to slow and eventually stops completely.
I like to leave it alone from 15-30 minutes before transferring to the fermenters.
 
drat it seems I'd need two ports one for 5 gallons and one for 10 gallons.


-=Jason=-
 
drat it seems I'd need two ports one for 5 gallons and one for 10 gallons.


-=Jason=-

IMO, a single port will work for either batch size. The position of the return port is not at all critical so long as you can direct the return flow on the inside. Don't get too hung up on creating a huge whirlpool with the return flow. You can very easily do that with a long handled spoon once the wort has cooled sufficiently. The reason that I suggest keeping the return port submerged is to minimize splashing.
 
IMO, a single port will work for either batch size. The position of the return port is not at all critical so long as you can direct the return flow on the inside. Don't get too hung up on creating a huge whirlpool with the return flow. You can very easily do that with a long handled spoon once the wort has cooled sufficiently. The reason that I suggest keeping the return port submerged is to minimize splashing.

ahh so I'll just position it towards the top of a 5 gallon batch pointing down and for a 10 gallon batch pointing up...

thanks for the help

-=Jason=-
 
Essentially, yes. Remember, the pump will be drawing the wort from the very bottom of the kettle, so you want the returning wort to get to the upper levels. The wort will tend to remain hot near the surface unless mixed back into the lower volume. The temperature stratification can often be much more than you might expect. I discovered this the hard way.
 
So I think I will put my return at 7 gallons turn it down just so it dips into 5 gallon batches and up do it's at the top of 10 gallon batches.

-= Jason =-
 
well I brewed my first brew this past Sunday and I did the CFC to BK and attempted to Whirlpool. Some things I noticed were that my returning wort was very cold in the 60's °F range. but it was taking some time to cool down the whole 5 gallon batch and my whirlpool was pretty non existent just using the pump and running through my CFC.

if I just use the pump and by pass the CFC I get a very strong whirlpool. so I was thinking about this.

going from Boil Kettle to CFC To another Keggle or container. then transferring back to BK to whirlpool after wort has cooled to let cold break and hops cone up before transferring to fermenter

besides having one more vessel to clean any downside to this?


-=Jason=-
 
well I brewed my first brew this past Sunday and I did the CFC to BK and attempted to Whirlpool. Some things I noticed were that my returning wort was very cold in the 60's °F range. but it was taking some time to cool down the whole 5 gallon batch and my whirlpool was pretty non existent just using the pump and running through my CFC.

if I just use the pump and by pass the CFC I get a very strong whirlpool. so I was thinking about this.

going from Boil Kettle to CFC To another Keggle or container. then transferring back to BK to whirlpool after wort has cooled to let cold break and hops cone up before transferring to fermenter

besides having one more vessel to clean any downside to this?


-=Jason=-

Have you tried this? I just built a 50' 3/8" cfc today and noticed it is quiet restrictive. I was hoping to whirlpool through the CFC but sounds like it might not be a strong whirlpool.
 
Back
Top