Wort Chillers - Immersion vs. Counterflow

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.

user 43212

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I started brewing initially using ice baths to chill my wort. I was able to step-up to a hand-me-down immersion wort chiller about 2 years ago and I have been using that.

I'm looking into potentially picking up some new equipment. What are some of the benefits of immersion vs. counterflow wort chillers? I'm assuming time is the biggest factor, but wonder if there is more. Or if there are any requirements in using counterflow (need a pump, different connects, etc)?

If there is another thread that already covers this I wasn't able to find, please point me there.
 
There was just another thread on this. The main advantage of the immersion chiller is that it gets the WHOLE batch down at the same time thus reducing the window for DMS production. Also you get the cold break and can let it settle in the kettle. I don't know how much this is theoretical versus practical since many people seem to use all sorts of chillers to good effect.
 
I use a plate chiller from http://www.dudadiesel.com/ and gravity feed it to my fermenter. No issues so far, I use a nylon paint strainer bag as a hop sock. It takes me roughly 6mins to chill 5gals to pitching temps.
 
I use a home built all copper CFC and recirculate into the kettle until I'm under 150 on the input side (under DMS formation stage). Then I flow to fermenter. Obviously this requires a pump. Including the recirculating stage the entire volume of wort is at pitching temperature faster than with an immersion chiller.

Both types of chillers work fine...
 
Where does the hop sock go? I'm not familiar with what that is?

On the hop foot, duhhhh. It holds the hops during the boil so you can pull out all of the hop sludge before sending it to the fermenter. wyzazz uses it (probably) so the plate chiller doesn't get clogged w/hops after the first 10 seconds.
 
I just did my first batch with an immersion chiller. Up to this point, I have been using water and ice baths to chill my wort. When doing a full boil, it would take up to 2-2 1/2 hours to chill the wort barely down to pitching temps.

Holy Shnikeys!! With the immersion chiller, I was at pitching temp in 15 minutes. Absolutely amazing!
 
Immersion chillers are simple, and work about as well as CFC or plate chillers IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the wort is constantly being exchanged over the surface of the chiller (via a pump or manual/motor drive stirring).

CFCs and plate chillers chill quickly but leave much of the wort hot for a while (perhaps contributing to DMS but almost certainly muting hop aroma from flameout additions). However if you recirculate with a pump, you can chill the whole volume quickly.

So the lesson to be learned is that all chillers have advantages and that the many of the disadvantages to any chiller can be solved with a handy march pump.
 
This is down to personal preference of course. An immersion chiller is probably the most versatile. You can bring it to a friends house and use it no problem. The biggest performance factor with ALL chiller types is the temp of the incoming coolant and they can all benefit from icewater pumped with a pond pump unless your house water is 50F year round.
 
Immersion chillers are simple, and work about as well as CFC or plate chillers IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the wort is constantly being exchanged over the surface of the chiller (via a pump or manual/motor drive stirring).

CFCs and plate chillers chill quickly but leave much of the wort hot for a while (perhaps contributing to DMS but almost certainly muting hop aroma from flameout additions). However if you recirculate with a pump, you can chill the whole volume quickly.

So the lesson to be learned is that all chillers have advantages and that the many of the disadvantages to any chiller can be solved with a handy march pump.

I'd disagree. Using the same pump my CFC gets a 5 gallon batch into the fermenter in far less time than it took to get the batch below 150 using the IC. I also use half the ice and 1/4th water. I also had a pump running a whirl pool using the IC.
 
I'd disagree. Using the same pump my CFC gets a 5 gallon batch into the fermenter in far less time than it took to get the batch below 150 using the IC. I also use half the ice and 1/4th water. I also had a pump running a whirl pool using the IC.

Do you get a cold break then? I'd have to assume it ends up in trub in the primary?

Quick edit. I'm starting to wonder if you give up the small foot print if this would be doable as a DYI kind of project....???
 
Do you get a cold break then? I'd have to assume it ends up in trub in the primary?

Quick edit. I'm starting to wonder if you give up the small foot print if this would be doable as a DYI kind of project....???

I wasn't going to post anything until I was done plumbing it but.. I built a second CFC to go around the MLT to save space. The BK pump will pump wort through the CFC from the BK. The MLT will hold the ice water and use it's pump to push it through the cooling jacket of the CFC. The return side of the cooling water will be returned to the MLT using a series of fan sprayers to shed most of the heat before returning to the ice bath.

Here is the new CFC in place.

S5033988.jpg


Edit:Sorry, didn't answer your questions. I haven't witnessed cold break, ever so I dunno about that. The BK whirl pools before sending it out to the CFC and it only picks up trub when the level in the BK gets close to the pump's pick up. First bit of cloudiness I shut the valve. I have only ran a test batch with water and one brew. I could easily re-plum the thing so it returns to the BK and then cold break wouldn't be an issue.
 
I'd disagree. Using the same pump my CFC gets a 5 gallon batch into the fermenter in far less time than it took to get the batch below 150 using the IC. I also use half the ice and 1/4th water. I also had a pump running a whirl pool using the IC.

You either had far more surface area on the CFC or a poor implementation on whirlpooling the IC. If you are effectively exchanging the wort over the chiller surface, nothing matters other than water temperature and chiller surface area.

ETA, I get 5 gallons under 150 in 2 minutes with an IC and there is no way you are beating that with a CFC and 1/2" plumbing, it is physically impossible to drain that fast.
 
You either had far more surface area on the CFC or a poor implementation on whirlpooling the IC. If you are effectively exchanging the wort over the chiller surface, nothing matters other than water temperature and chiller surface area.

ETA, I get 5 gallons under 150 in 2 minutes with an IC and there is no way you are beating that with a CFC and 1/2" plumbing, it is physically impossible to drain that fast.

Nope. Its a surface area to volume ratio.
I had a 20 foot 1/2" ID immersion chiller which works out to be 471 square inches of surface area. The cooling water would come out just barely hot.

The new CFC is 25' of 3/8" OD for a total surface area of 353.5 square inches. The cooling water comes out scorching and the wort at pitching temps. 5 gallons of wort is in the fermenter in under 5 ready for pitching.

This is the same reason why plate chillers work more efficiently.

Okay... so I decided to get some empirical data. I can pump 5 gallons through 1/2" ID in 1 min 3 seconds.

With the CFC attached with 25' of 3/8" tubing in 4 min 40 seconds.

I do know for a fact that it took 7 to 10 minutes to get my wort below 150 and it used one whole bag of ice. From my experience with my system the CFC is superior. I'm not going to worry about 2 min and 40 seconds worth of DMS formation, especially after the findings with no chill brewing.


Why do I feel like I just registered for the special Olympics? :drunk:

PS, I am using march pumps, not gravity if that was part of your calculation...
 
Wow! This thread has a ton of detail, and quickly went over my head :)

Immersion chillers are simple, and work about as well as CFC or plate chillers IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the wort is constantly being exchanged over the surface of the chiller (via a pump or manual/motor drive stirring).

So the thought here, is I could stick with my current immersion chiller, but aid the speed of chilling by moving the water? What could I use to do this? Are there any motor driven stirrers? I'm just thinking of room in my kettle if I already have the immersion chiller in there.

I'm debating about getting a new brewpot with built-in thermometer and valve output and then picking up a plate chiller that I could run a hose to from the brew kettle. Is this a pretty common set-up?
 
I do know for a fact that it took 7 to 10 minutes to get my wort below 150 and it used one whole bag of ice.

Your implementation was flawed. Plenty of people can do much better with an immersion chiller. Nobody is claiming that a poor immersion chiller implementation is as good as a good CFC implementation.
 
Your implementation was flawed. Plenty of people can do much better with an immersion chiller. Nobody is claiming that a poor immersion chiller implementation is as good as a good CFC implementation.

My, aren't you snarkey.

I'll admit, that the 1/2 ID tubing is way too big . Another thing you haven't considered is the mass of my keggle. With an IC you have to remove the heat stored in the keg as well as the water. Considering my keggle is insulated that is a lot of heat to move in addition to the heat in the wort. That is the whole point, to move heat. When I had an uninsulated 6 gallon thin walled brew pot the same IC worked gangbusters with no whirl pool.
The CFC doesn't have to move the heat stored in the keggle itself, just what happens to be in the wort as it travels through it.

Where's your empirical data? At the least, try to keep it civil...
 
Back
Top