All copper diy counterflow chiller?

Need to get a better chiller. My 3/8x35' IC a bit small for my move into ten gallons. I like the idea of counterflow chilling, but am cautious about a few designs. I like the chillzilla, but I'm not spending 200 clams on my chiller. The DIY coiled copper and garden hose is cheap, but how does the rubber or PVC hose hold up over time? If it degrades I'm sure it would suck to take the whole thing apart to repair it. I like how small plate. Hillers are, but my IPA recipe has 8 oz of hops in it, so that just scares me a bit. So, I got to thinking why couldn't I make a 3/4 over 1/2 copper tube cfc? I figure I could make four tubes 2 1/2 feet long and interconnect them to save space by making 180 degree turns in the 1/2" copper before it picks up the 3/4 copper cooling jacket again. Like this, only four of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fractional_distillation_lab_apparatus.svg. Any ideas? I figure I can build it for about $90.

I made CFC modules like you've described and used them on my old rig. It worked, but I wish I would have made more of them as the cooling capacity wasn't as good as I had hoped and I ended up supplementing it with a small immersion cooler in the summer when the cooling water was warmer. I made "U-links" from 1/2" copper to interconnect the wort path (held on with silicone tubing) and the cooling water interconnects were soldered. I could pop off the u-links and look through each tube for periodic inspection.

EDIT: I think I had 5 modules that were about 36" in length - 1/2" copper inside 3/4" copper.

So like a leibig condenser?

buy a plate chiller and be done with it.

www.dudadiesel.com

$150.00 and you have a solid device. Put your hops in a muslin bag and you don't have clogging issues either.

Islandboy85 said:

...
The DIY coiled copper and garden hose is cheap, but how does the rubber or PVC hose hold up over time? If it degrades I'm sure it would suck to take the whole thing apart to repair it.
...

Click to expand...

I'm sure the garden hose will outlast many items from your brewhouse. It's the cheapest/easiest solution for chilling. And even if it degrades into nothing, just unwind, desolder, and add a new one.

The hose will last several years (of continuous abuse) and by that time you'll have upgraded your brewhouse size and require something with a larger capacity or you will have lost interest in this hobby...

Junkster said:

I made CFC modules like you've described and used them on my old rig. It worked, but I wish I would have made more of them as the cooling capacity wasn't as good as I had hoped and I ended up supplementing it with a small immersion cooler in the summer when the cooling water was warmer. I made "U-links" from 1/2" copper to interconnect the wort path (held on with silicone tubing) and the cooling water interconnects were soldered. I could pop off the u-links and look through each tube for periodic inspection.

EDIT: I think I had 5 modules that were about 36" in length - 1/2" copper inside 3/4" copper.

Click to expand...

What kind of flow rates and water temperatures were you working with?

Here is my 1/2" CFC. I use 1/2"OD inner copper tubing inserted inside 3/4"OD copper tubing. The coiling must be done on a larger form as the 3/4" tube will kink badly if you attempt to wrap it onto a Cornelius keg. I used a form that is 13" in diameter. Tough to form but do-able..

Wouldn't you lose temperature from the outer copper? Or are u submersing it in ice water?

kennywd said:

Wouldn't you lose temperature from the outer copper? Or are u submersing it in ice water?

Click to expand...

You sure would. By definition, that is the point of a heat-exchanger, so in this case, the chiller would actually be more efficient because it is also radiating the heat into the air, rather than insulating the exchange medium (ie the water) like a rubber hose would

thelorax121 said:

You sure would. By definition, that is the point of a heat-exchanger, so in this case, the chiller would actually be more efficient because it is also radiating the heat into the air, rather than insulating the exchange medium (ie the water) like a rubber hose would

Click to expand...

So you're pumping the wort through the outer jacket instead of the inner tube? Interesting. It's a very nice looking build.

Islandboy85 said:

So you're pumping the wort through the outer jacket instead of the inner tube? Interesting. It's a very nice looking build.

Click to expand...

No. The wort goes through the inner line & cooling water through the outer.

P-J said:

No. The wort goes through the inner line & cooling water through the outer.

Click to expand...

If you anneal the tubes could you wrap them tighter? What kind of water usage are you going through to chill a 10 gallon batch?

thelorax121 said:

You sure would. By definition, that is the point of a heat-exchanger, so in this case, the chiller would actually be more efficient because it is also radiating the heat into the air, rather than insulating the exchange medium (ie the water) like a rubber hose would

Click to expand...

Well I would like to hear how well it works.

sub'd

Well if you're running water on the outside (A in the Fig.) then the hope is that it will be cooler than the wort line (B in Fig.). The water running in the outside line will most likely be cooler than the air also, so you're giving up cold tubing to the atmosphere rather then to the wort. I would run the wort on the outside line (A in Fig.) that way your wort has more surface area exposed to colder areas (Atmosphere and water line which would be line B in Fig.). And like another poster mentioned, rather then atmosphere being the external, you can submerge it in a bucket with water and ice and get it down probably 3x more efficiently.

Fig.
Atmosphere (A(B)A) Atmosphere

or

Icewater (A(B)A) Icewater

Dhruv6911 said:

...
I would run the wort on the outside line (A in Fig.) that way your wort has more surface area exposed to colder areas (Atmosphere and water line which would be line B in Fig.).
...
you can submerge it in a bucket with water and ice and get it down probably 3x more efficiently.
...
Icewater (A(B)A) Icewater

Click to expand...

You could do that - however the wort path would become very difficult to clean. Along with other issues.

My experience with the chiller is the wort output temp is the same as the water input temp.

I agree with PJ. Not only would the outer path be harder to clean (especially since my inner tube will be wrapped with solid gauge wire to generate turbulent flow). Also, you assumption is based on the input temperature of the water. I would argue that after the water has traveled 1 ft counterflow to the wort it heats up massively, thereby making it hotter than the atmosphere and then radiating that heat out of the system. I am by no means a fluid mechanics, or heat exchange expert, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

P-J said:

You could do that - however the wort path would become very difficult to clean. Along with other issues.

My experience with the chiller is the wort output temp is the same as the water input temp.

Click to expand...

Well there is no real efficient way to clean the inside of either tube, only sanitize. I assume you the lines by only running boiling water through it? The same can be done for the outside lane.

If your flow is high enough, the out flowing water should be cooler than the wort after the first few minutes.

Best way to find out is by doing a test run with just boiling water.

Dhruv6911 said:

Well there is no real efficient way to clean the inside of either tube, only sanitize. I assume you the lines by only running boiling water through it? The same can be done for the outside lane.

If your flow is high enough, the out flowing water should be cooler than the wort after the first few minutes.

Best way to find out is by doing a test run with just boiling water.

Click to expand...

Huh? It is a CFC (Counter Flow Chiller). It is a one pass chiller similar to a plate chiller. The difference is the wort path does not have any restrictions or catch points within it. With your suggestion the wort path would get severly restricted and near impossible to clear out.

The test run is a good idea. Build one and try it out. Let us know how you make out.

Catch points? Can you elaborate?

Dhruv6911 said:

Catch points? Can you elaborate?

Click to expand...

Just look at the interior of a plate chiller:



There are many, many places within it for eddy currents to form. When that happens, hops debris and cold break can block passage.

Using your suggestion with the CFC will provide the same result. Keep in mind that it is chilling wort - not chilling water. Also, both are a single pass systems.

Islandboy85 said:

So you're pumping the wort through the outer jacket instead of the inner tube? Interesting. It's a very nice looking build.

Click to expand...

I don't think he is, but that's a curious idea. If one were to use an all-copper chiller like that, and submerge the thing in ice water, it might work better if you ran the wort through the outer pipe. The wort would have colder fluid on both the inner and outer sides of the ring.

Islandboy85 said:

What kind of flow rates and water temperatures were you working with?

Click to expand...

I don't recall measuring water temperatures or cooling water flowrates. The wort was gravity fed into it and the output into the fermenter was regulated with a ball valve to maintain the desired temperature at the output. It seemed like I had to slow it down a bit during the summer when the water temperature was higher, but I never measured things.

horseinmay said:

I don't think he is, but that's a curious idea. If one were to use an all-copper chiller like that, and submerge the thing in ice water, it might work better if you ran the wort through the outer pipe. The wort would have colder fluid on both the inner and outer sides of the ring.

Click to expand...

that was my thinking too.