Using plate chiller to recirculate mash

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.

mike11b82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
52
Reaction score
1
Location
Marietta, GA
SO while I was cooling today i got the idea of using my plate chiller to recirculate the mash. I'm think with two pumps it would be possible, what's every one else think?
 
This has been brought up a lot recently, and the general consensus is that the passage ways if a plate chiller are too small to facilitate what you want to do.

Plus, having bits if unboiled mash would not be good when cooling, and plate chillers aren't the easiest thing to clean.
 
I recirculate through a chillzilla, works great but i do not currently have a temperature controler controling my pump so i have to keep a close eye the temperature. I have done about 20 10gal batches this way and have had no problems with clogging once i have a chance to install my temp controler im sure it will be much easier to control.
 
Get some quick disconnects. When recirculating the boil, go directly from the bottom of the mash to the top. When it's time to cool, recirculate through the plate chiller. Pay special attention to filter all boil additions by putting them in a muslin bag/hop spider, etc..

That'll do 'er.
 
I recirculate through a chillzilla, works great but i do not currently have a temperature controler controling my pump so i have to keep a close eye the temperature. I have done about 20 10gal batches this way and have had no problems with clogging once i have a chance to install my temp controler im sure it will be much easier to control.

cuart682, resurrecting an old thread. Do you still recirculate through your chillzilla? If so, have you ever had problems with clogging? Do you use any filter to prevent the occasional stray grain husk from getting into the chiller?

One of the concerns I have seen raised regarding the idea of using a PC as a HERMS is related to the chiller getting gummed up with protein from the green wort (no hot break yet) - do you see any signs of that?

And lastly, did you ever get your temperature controller and if so, how well is everything working?

thanks,

-fafrd

p.s. would also love to hear from any other brewers out there that use plate chillers to recirculate mash in a HERMS/recirculating mash rig...
 
I do currently still use my cfc as a herms, I have never had any problems with clogs or anything gumming up on me. I still have not added a temperature controller to the system because it looks like I will be upgrading my entire brewery to all ele tric in the near future and don't want to spend the $ to upgrade my old brewery. Since my last post on this topic I did change my process a little though. I originally kept the water in the hlt at sparge temp and use the valve on the output to control the flow of the hot water to keep the temp correct, doing it this way was fine in the warm months but I was getting too many drastic temp swings doing it this way so now I just kelp the temperature in my hlt at about 4 deg higher than my mash temp and it works much better this way. I can't remember when but since I posted to this topic last I found another thread where the cfc herms was discussed in great length you might want to look for that thread as well think it was titled something like modified herms, hope this helps if you have anymore questions let me know I will be glad to help.
 
I do currently still use my cfc as a herms, I have never had any problems with clogs or anything gumming up on me. I still have not added a temperature controller to the system because it looks like I will be upgrading my entire brewery to all ele tric in the near future and don't want to spend the $ to upgrade my old brewery. Since my last post on this topic I did change my process a little though. I originally kept the water in the hlt at sparge temp and use the valve on the output to control the flow of the hot water to keep the temp correct, doing it this way was fine in the warm months but I was getting too many drastic temp swings doing it this way so now I just kelp the temperature in my hlt at about 4 deg higher than my mash temp and it works much better this way. I can't remember when but since I posted to this topic last I found another thread where the cfc herms was discussed in great length you might want to look for that thread as well think it was titled something like modified herms, hope this helps if you have anymore questions let me know I will be glad to help.

cuart682, thanks for coming back to life on this thread :)

Looking at my original post, I guess I was confused and thought that a Chillzilla was a plate chiller, not a counterflow chiller. Glad to hear your CFC works well as an external heat exchange coil - are you going to continue to use that set-up in your new rig?

And yeah, I don't have any experience with HERMS/mash recirculation yet, but from what I understand, it ought to be much easier to control if the HLT temp is at or slightly above the desired mash liquor temp. Someone else had suggested a technique similar to your old one (HLT temp at mashout temp and controlling HLT flow rate) but I was concerned about how difficult it would be to control and potential large temperature swings (especially during any steps).

I'm looking at keeping the heat-exchange external to the HLT, like you, but am considering using a plate chiller rather than a CFC. A CFC has the advantage that clogging is not a concern but I would want stainless rather than copper which means it would have to be very long (probably 50', like the HERMS coils folks use inside their HLTs).

If a good filter is used to keep any grain particles out of the CFC, it seems like an attractive alternative.

I am interested in the chilling performance of the chillzilla - do you use it to chill boiling wort at the end of the brew cycle? If so, can you estimate chilling performance (tap in temp, tap flow rate, wort flow rate (pumped or gravity), cool wort out temp and total batch size)?

thanks,

-fafrd
 
I do not advise using a Plate chiller for recirculating wort through. Too many problems. A counter flow chiller works wonderful for this situation. I like my CFC much better than my plate chiller overall for it flexibility and ease of cleaning compared to a Plate Chiller. Plate Chillers in my opinion are over rated for homebrewing. And yes I have and use both regularly.
 
I do not advise using a Plate chiller for recirculating wort through. Too many problems. A counter flow chiller works wonderful for this situation. I like my CFC much better than my plate chiller overall for it flexibility and ease of cleaning compared to a Plate Chiller. Plate Chillers in my opinion are over rated for homebrewing. And yes I have and use both regularly.

wadefisher, you opinion on this is important to me, and if you have both plate and CFC chillers, you are in a unique position to contrast these two pieces of equipment from experience. I've used a copper garden hose CFC but never used a plate chiller. Below is my view on the contrast between these two pieces of equipment for mash recirculation - if you think any thing is wrong or if there are any important aspects I have overlook, I would appreciate the input before I have committed my design:

PLEATE CHILLER + IN-LINE FILTER PROS FOR MASH RECIRCULATION (VERUS CFC):
-very compact (highest ration of heat transfer surface to volume)
-minimum volume means highest responsiveness and minimum dead volume in heat exchange
-all metal so no concerns handling temperature on either chilling water or wort paths (no possibility of chemical leakage, even at boiling temperatures)
-can be baked in oven to 'bake off' any materials caught in the chiller (this sounds like a PITA, but at least it is an option, where with CFC it is not).
-price performance ($/m^2 of heat exchange surface area) - plate chillers seem to leave all competing technologies in the dust in this department...

PLEATE CHILLER + IN-LINE FILTER CONS FOR MASH RECIRCULATION (VERUS CFC):
-trouble / complexity of cleaning (though this needs to be considered when a good filter in in place before the plate chiller - less clear there is a significant difference in this case)
-possibility to get clogged (this seems to be the big negative versus CFC, but if a good filter can take the possibility of clogging off of the table, it seems like the plate chiller would be the better option).

If you have any thoughts where I am wrong about some aspect of this and/or have overlooked another significant pro/con, I would greatly value that input...

-fafrd
 
PLEATE CHILLER + IN-LINE FILTER PROS FOR MASH RECIRCULATION (VERUS CFC):
-very compact (highest ration of heat transfer surface to volume)
YES

-minimum volume means highest responsiveness and minimum dead volume in heat exchange
Easily overcome by using gravity, you can drain just as much out when done.

-all metal so no concerns handling temperature on either chilling water or wort paths (no possibility of chemical leakage, even at boiling temperatures)
Get a GOOD CFC, all copper!

-can be baked in oven to 'bake off' any materials caught in the chiller (this sounds like a PITA, but at least it is an option, where with CFC it is not).
this will not get the permanently stuck crap out of it. You will have to sanitize in oven or pressure cooker just before brewing. Chemicals are not as effective at sanitizing these.

-price performance ($/m^2 of heat exchange surface area) - plate chillers seem to leave all competing technologies in the dust in this department...
Is this part of our concern?

PLEATE CHILLER + IN-LINE FILTER CONS FOR MASH RECIRCULATION (VERUS CFC):
-trouble / complexity of cleaning (though this needs to be considered when a good filter in in place before the plate chiller - less clear there is a significant difference in this case)
Your pre-filter will clog regularly. This is also a real PITA

-possibility to get clogged (this seems to be the big negative versus CFC, but if a good filter can take the possibility of clogging off of the table, it seems like the plate chiller would be the better option).
More efficient, less effective for practical brewing IMHO.

All of these statements are my opinion take it for what it is. I'm not here to make universal statements about how to brew. What I have learned, and I have bought and tried almost every piece of home brew equipment you can imagine, is make the brew day a simple and effective process and you will love brewing. Don't over complicate it! Great beer is made from simple recipes on simple equipment more times than visa-verse. Don't sweat small details. Its more about sanitizing than exacting temperature control down to a 10th of a degree or cooling your wort in 10 minutes or having e-stop buttons and flashing lights on your controller. You give me a stove and a big pot and some barley and I will make you beer. I have run the full gambit of starting simple to full electric build with bells and buzzers and back again.

Relax and have a home brew. :mug:
 
I've been shopping too. I need something big as I brew up to 15 gallons. I'm currently doing no-chill but it has its own issues (for another post perhaps). Anyhow, what do you all think of this CFC from JaDeD Brewing? Although not compact, it looks very good for cooling or heating and especially cleaning. If anyone has a used one they want to sell..PM me please!

http://jadedbrewing.com/products/jaded-counterflow-chiller-cfc

Also, I'd like to hear thoughts on recirculating chilled wort to the brew kettle until the entire batch is cool...to use the BK screen to catch cold break...any value in that step? Thanks.

JaDeD.JPG
 
All of these statements are my opinion take it for what it is. I'm not here to make universal statements about how to brew. What I have learned, and I have bought and tried almost every piece of home brew equipment you can imagine, is make the brew day a simple and effective process and you will love brewing. Don't over complicate it! Great beer is made from simple recipes on simple equipment more times than visa-verse. Don't sweat small details. Its more about sanitizing than exacting temperature control down to a 10th of a degree or cooling your wort in 10 minutes or having e-stop buttons and flashing lights on your controller. You give me a stove and a big pot and some barley and I will make you beer. I have run the full gambit of starting simple to full electric build with bells and buzzers and back again.

I really appreciate your taking the time to share your opinions on these equipment trade-offs, wadefisher. And don't worry, I'm not into flashing lights and complicated computer programs. I was heavy into all-grain in the early 80's the 'old-fashioned' way, so I also know how to make great beer with nothing but a big pot, some barley and a stove :)

I stopped brewing for a couple reasons - the most significant being getting a job in Italy (though I did manage to brew one batch over there :mug:) but the others included the time involved (dawn to dusk) and the stress of temperature control (wanting it to come out right after all of that effort). And of course the other factor was the increasing availability of good craft brew and the growing microbrewing industry.

My goals for getting back into brewing now are to experiment with step mashes and explore a wider variety of beer styles than I brewed in the past. And from my experience turning all-night barbequed brisket smokes into much more enjoyable and stress-free sessions by adding a bit of temperature control technology (Barbeque Guru - PID), one of my main goals with my new rig will be to use the same basic technology to take the burden of minute-by-minute heat management off of my shoulders... And the other main goal will be to reduce the total time needed to devote to a brew session. Compared to the 'old days', I have a family now and do not want to take control of the entire kitchen for a full day whenever I decide to brew.

So as close as I can come to 'set-it-and-forget-it' when it comes to mash temperatures, etc... and time efficiency are my two goals.

Also, I have never had a bad batch, so no need to remind me of the importance of sanitation in brewing :)

I have used a copper-in-hose CFC but have no experience with mash recirculation. Since I am putting the new rig together from the ground up, I have complete freedom in equipment choices and configuration.

Your opinion on HERMS coil versus CFC versus plate chiller is helpful to me, so I will comment below on your feedback:


Easily overcome by using gravity, you can drain just as much out when done.

I'm sure you are right, but there are no positives from extra volume of liquid in the chiller. A 50' 1/2" HERMS coil will have 2 quarts in it and a 25' CFC will have a quart. If a plate chiller with only a cup of mash liquor can be made to work well, that reduced mash liquor volume is a plus. Aside from mash efficiencies and dead space (where gravity and proper draining can make up the difference, as you say), reduced heat exchanger volume is going to make the entire mash system more responsive to whatever heating source is used for step mashing. Probably not a big deal overall, but an advantage for the plate chiller all the same...

Get a GOOD CFC, all copper!

As I already said, I have a DIY copper CFC. I've seen the discoloration that can happen if the chiller is not used frequently and properly kept clean. I think for someone who brews regularly or who is willing to go through a full vinegar wash sanitation cycle whenever the copper CFC has not been used in a while, copper is great. For my own beer-brewing style (sporadic), I am concerned that copper is not the right solution for me and would want to go stainless. If I end up abandoning the plate chiller idea, the choices I will consider would be SS HERMS coil, SS+PEX DIY CFC, or the SS-in-SS CFC sold by Williams Brewing (http://www.williamsbrewing.com/STAINLESS-CONVOLUTED-COUNTERFLOW-CHILLER-P3152.aspx).

Any comments you have on your own experience cleaning your copper CFC would be helpful. What is the longest you have ever let it sit between brew sessions? Have you ever had to clean with vinegar? Any concerns at all about keeping the inside of the copper coil clean?

this will not get the permanently stuck crap out of it. You will have to sanitize in oven or pressure cooker just before brewing. Chemicals are not as effective at sanitizing these.

This is really the central question. If you are correct and even with an expensive in-line filter in front of the plate chiller it will not be possible to keep the crap out of it and it will get clogged, you will be right, I will be wrong, and I will have an expensive paperweight and move to a HERMS coil or a CFC. The folks who have used the Northern Brewer in-line filter in front of their plate chillers claim that a hot water rinse cycle becomes enough to keep the plate chiller clean.

If I end up having to do a full oven-bake + chemical rinse cleaning cycle before every brew session, that will probably end up being a deal-killer for me. But if it is only something I will need to do once a year or so as part of a maintenance cycle, I could live with that.

The only way to know for sure will be to give it a try, so I think I may sign up to be another guinea pig on this and give it a go. If the plate chiller offered no advantages, the initiative would be silly, but I believe I see enough positives that it is worth testing how well it performs...

And one nice thing in terms of rig configuration is that a plate chiller and a CFC perform exactly the same function, so one can be swapped out for the other with little/no impact on overall system design.

Is this part of our concern?

Having the best heat exchange efficiency is not part of my concern. Within limits, the $s I am spending on brewing equipment is not a major concern either. On the other hand, I don't like to waste money needlessly, and I want a system that is practical and easy to use. If I can make a system work well with a single heat-exchange solution (rather than a HERMS coil + a CFC or IC for wort chilling), it is one less thing to clean and for the same $s, I can invest in one higher-performance heat exchange solution rather than two of lesser performance.

Your pre-filter will clog regularly. This is also a real PITA

Completely agree that filter clog would be a real PITA and the first time I get a pre-filter clog in the middle of a mash cycle (or a wort chilling cycle), I will probably abandon this approach and fall back to a CFC. The brewers who are experimenting with the Brewer's Hardware in-line filter are reporting pretty good results. Do you have any reason to doubt those claims?

Another option I am considering is to bypass the filter+chiller out of the recirculation loop until the wort has cleared. My vulnerability is that I have no experience with mash recirculation, but from what I have read and seen, it seems like keeping the filter from clogging should be possible...


More efficient, less effective for practical brewing IMHO.

Again, I really appreciate YHO :) And I remain open to changing direction. From what I've read and understood, though, it seems like the potential advantages of an effective filter+plate chiller combination outweigh the risks of discovering that you are right and that this is not effective for practical brewing.

I am a practical enough person that if regular cleaning is a PITA or I get even a single clogged filter or chiller, I will admit that your more experienced judgment was correct and my naïve initiative was a mistake. On the other hand, I hope you will agree that the practicality of this configuration can only really be understood through trial-and-error (which is at least pat of the joy of brewing for all of us, right? :D)

-fafrd
 
OK...sorry, it's starting to feel like I'm pimping for JaDeD Brewing, but it sure looks like this contraption, altho a little pricey at $285, would be extremely convenient for HERMS and then, if you wanted, fill it with ice water and use it to chill wort. 50' of 3/8" copper, 15 gallon aluminium kettle so meanwhile it's a pretty big HLT too..

JaDeD HERMS kettle.jpg
 
fafrd; Keeping it quick, I've already had a couple.
The inside of a plate chiller is COPPER, same corrosion issue.
Siphoning effect... you will not have 2 quarts of wort left in CFC. Nor will you have the available space in a plate chiller full if you set it up using gravity effectively. My true belief is get BOTH, just know their strengths and weaknesses.

And I use both. Get Both. use accordingly. My nano brewery uses an over sized plate chiller the same has home brewers, but it is a constant battle to keep the pre filter from clogging because we will never put wort through it that is not filtered because we know that is worse.
Just don't want everyone thinking the plate chiller is the clear winner.
Good old school stuff still has it's merit.
That is why we are here. We want to hear everyone's 2.5 cents...:cross:
 
The inside of a plate chiller is COPPER, same corrosion issue.

I had not realized this - if a plate chiller has all of the same concerns regarding inaccessible copper cooling/heating surface as a copper coil, this would kill one of the most significant advantages for me. The Dudadeisal website says: "Stainless Steel Copper Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers" and I assumed this meant a stainless outer contact layer sandwiching an inner copper heat exchange layer. If that is not what it meant and these plate chillers have all of the same concerns of a copper coil chiller, this could be a deal-killer for me...

My nano brewery uses an over sized plate chiller the same has home brewers, but it is a constant battle to keep the pre filter from clogging because we will never put wort through it that is not filtered because we know that is worse.

What kind of filter do you use? If this is for wort chilling, are you also whirlpooling?

Just don't want everyone thinking the plate chiller is the clear winner.

Totally agree with you on that. In terms of heat exchange capacity per $, nothing beats them, but there are other important factors including ease of cleaning and potential for clogging that may outweigh that advantage.

Here is the link to the new in-line filter from Brewer's Hardware - if you think this is nothing new and is unlikely to make a plate chiller any easier to keep free of clogs, I'd appreciate any inputs you can provide:

http://www.brewershardware.com/FILTER1.html

-fafrd
 
The inside of a plate chiller is COPPER, same corrosion issue.

I did a bit of research and it looks like "Stainless Steel Copper Brazed Plate Heat Exchangers" means that the heat exchange plates are manufactured out of stainless steel but the plates are brazed together using copper as the brazing filler: http://www.alfalaval.com/solution-finder/products/cb/Documents/AXP10_ERC00262EN.pdf

So there is still some copper which is probably coming into contact with the wort, which is a concern, but it is probably only a tiny fraction of the overall heat exchange surface area and only a thin layer between plates around the outer edge.

Anyway, something to ask Brian about because if there is any copper that can corrode or discolor, I want to know it before I finalize my design, not after...

-fafrd
 
fafrd,
You seem to be limiting your choices of available solutions that might fit your requirements better. I don't know if it's because of an unhealthy fascination with plate chillers, some equally disturbing obsession with price/performance/meter maximization, or with thinking the only other solution is to hard plumb a HERMS coils into your HLT. There are other options.

Just to lay out some basics:
You don't have to hard plumb the HERMS coil into the pot. You can leave it loose, or plumb it into the lid. Either way, they can double as an IC, and are clean by the time you are done chilling. Maximize that! Also, using the hard plumbed HERMS for ice bath chillers, like some tout, is a less than ideal chilling method, even if you have access to unlimited ice.

IC vs. CFC vs. PC- if your water isn't cold enough for an IC, chances are it isn't cold enough for the others either, at least with any meaningful flow. If you have to add ice to perform a chill, it's a lot easier to hit temps with an IC, especially if you don't recirc back to the kettle when using the CFC or PC. The IC is also a no brainer to sanitize- just stick it in the boil; and to clean- just spray it off.

Stainless tubing used for ICs (or a CFC) is much thinner (.02") than the copper tubing used/appropriate for either ICs or CFCs. The performance of .002" wall SS is at least as good as the thicker copper tubing of equal ID, even though copper is a better conductor. Check out nybrewsupply. Their SS ICs are cheaper than the equivalent in copper, and he will make any size, shape, or tubing ID for about the cost of the raw tubing.

The mash IS the liquid that is being recirculated in a HERMS/RIMS. As you mentioned, you do not want to have the heat bath temps much higher (a few degrees) than your desired mash temp, or step temp when stepping. This was the impetus behind the HERMS. Many thought there was localized heating (much greater than mash temps) with the RIMS tube/element, especially when stepping.

With that out of the way, and since you seem to want to minimize your brew day length and variables, there are also whole new brewing methods, like Brew In A Bag (BIAB), and Mash In A Bag (MIAB). These simplify the mashing process, especially compared to fly sparging. There is a small loss of efficiency, but nothing a $2 worth of grain won't fix for the average 5 gal batch. The efficiencies can approach/equal batch sparging, and like batch sparging, your numbers are much more predictable, since the sparge process if a fixed game.

With BIAB, the HERMS system can be thrown on its head, and the HEX coil submerged into the mash, since it is a very thin mash. The residual wort lost is only limited by how long you want to wait for the last drip, same goes for when chilling. The main advantages of BIAB/MIAB are simplicity, predictability, less total time, and less equipment (which also means less to cleaning time). Adding either style of HERMS to BIAB does mean an extra pot, but it can be a small one, even electric with only a 110V element.

You might start a new thread seeking input for your new system. I am sure if you lay down some basic requirements/goals you will get plenty of responses. There are a lot of recent innovations, and more all the time, to lessen brew day hassles.

From these selected requirements from just one of your posts, it seems like in practice that ease of use, reduced brew day length, versatility, and predictability are your most important goals, regardless how painful your unrequited love for the fair chill-zilla may be.

I stopped brewing for a couple reasons - the others included the time involved (dawn to dusk) and the stress of temperature control (wanting it to come out right after all of that effort).

My goals for getting back into brewing now are to experiment with step mashes
And the other main goal will be to reduce the total time needed to devote to a brew session. Compared to the 'old days', I have a family now and do not want to take control of the entire kitchen for a full day whenever I decide to brew.

So as close as I can come to 'set-it-and-forget-it' when it comes to mash temperatures, etc... and time efficiency are my two goals.

Since I am putting the new rig together from the ground up, I have complete freedom in equipment choices and configuration.

Your opinion on HERMS coil versus CFC versus plate chiller is helpful to me, so I will comment below on your feedback:

For my own beer-brewing style (sporadic), I am concerned that copper is not the right solution for me and would want to go stainless.
If I can make a system work well with a single heat-exchange solution (rather than a HERMS coil + a CFC or IC for wort chilling), it is one less thing to clean and for the same $s, I can invest in one higher-performance heat exchange solution rather than two of lesser performance.
 
fafrd,
You seem to be limiting your choices of available solutions that might fit your requirements better. I don't know if it's because of an unhealthy fascination with plate chillers, some equally disturbing obsession with price/performance/meter maximization, or with thinking the only other solution is to hard plumb a HERMS coils into your HLT. There are other options.

Just to lay out some basics:
You don't have to hard plumb the HERMS coil into the pot. You can leave it loose, or plumb it into the lid. Either way, they can double as an IC, and are clean by the time you are done chilling. Maximize that! Also, using the hard plumbed HERMS for ice bath chillers, like some tout, is a less than ideal chilling method, even if you have access to unlimited ice.

IC vs. CFC vs. PC- if your water isn't cold enough for an IC, chances are it isn't cold enough for the others either, at least with any meaningful flow. If you have to add ice to perform a chill, it's a lot easier to hit temps with an IC, especially if you don't recirc back to the kettle when using the CFC or PC. The IC is also a no brainer to sanitize- just stick it in the boil; and to clean- just spray it off.

Stainless tubing used for ICs (or a CFC) is much thinner (.002") than the copper tubing used/appropriate for either ICs or CFCs. The performance of .002" wall SS is at least as good as the thicker copper tubing of equal ID, even though copper is a better conductor. Check out nybrewsupply. Their SS ICs are cheaper than the equivalent in copper, and he will make any size, shape, or tubing ID for about the cost of the raw tubing.

The mash IS the liquid that is being recirculated in a HERMS/RIMS. As you mentioned, you do not want to have the heat bath temps much higher (a few degrees) than your desired mash temp, or step temp when stepping. This was the impetus behind the HERMS. Many thought there was localized heating (much greater than mash temps) with the RIMS tube/element, especially when stepping.

With that out of the way, and since you seem to want to minimize your brew day length and variables, there are also whole new brewing methods, like Brew In A Bag (BIAB), and Mash In A Bag (MIAB). These simplify the mashing process, especially compared to fly sparging. There is a small loss of efficiency, but nothing a $2 worth of grain won't fix for the average 5 gal batch. The efficiencies can approach/equal batch sparging, and like batch sparging, your numbers are much more predictable, since the sparge process if a fixed game.

With BIAB, the HERMS system can be thrown on its head, and the HEX coil submerged into the mash, since it is a very thin mash. The residual wort lost is only limited by how long you want to wait for the last drip, same goes for when chilling. The main advantages of BIAB/MIAB are simplicity, predictability, less total time, and less equipment (which also means less to cleaning time). Adding either style of HERMS to BIAB does mean an extra pot, but it can be a small one, even electric with only a 110V element.

You might start a new thread seeking input for your new system. I am sure if you lay down some basic requirements/goals you will get plenty of responses. There are a lot of recent innovations, and more all the time, to lessen brew day hassles.

From these selected requirements from just one of your posts, it seems like in practice that ease of use, reduced brew day length, versatility, and predictability are your most important goals, regardless how painful your unrequited love for the fair chill-zilla may be.

cwi,

thanks for your thoughtful post (which also cracked me up :))

You raise a number of valid points and I think I am going to take you up on your suggestion to start a dedicated thread seeking input for my new system...

-fafrd

p.s. I have no unrequited love for the fair chill-zilla, but I am an engineer and do admit to a certain weakness for determining and acquiring the 'best' solution (where the devil is then in the details of 'best for what'?).
 
cwi,

thanks for your thoughtful post (which also cracked me up :))

You raise a number of valid points and I think I am going to take you up on your suggestion to start a dedicated thread seeking input for my new system...

-fafrd

p.s. I have no unrequited love for the fair chill-zilla, but I am an engineer and do admit to a certain weakness for determining and acquiring the 'best' solution (where the devil is then in the details of 'best for what'?).
So it isn't true beauty you are attracted to, but shiny, sparkly, overly complicated things. I'm an engineer, too, and have the same disease.

Post your thread on here, or PM it to me, and I will keep tabs on it. I will warn you though, that BIAB is my latest fixation. I may devolve back as far as batch sparging, which is a close relative of BIAB, but no further. Reverting back to fly sparging for a 5% gain in efficiency, especially when it only saves ~$2, adds ~1 hour, and can be unpredictable/troublesome, just isn't worth it.

My next battle is trub management. I think I have a couple of solutions, but it requires sifting through SS mesh specs and performance.
 
cuart682, thanks for coming back to life on this thread :)

Looking at my original post, I guess I was confused and thought that a Chillzilla was a plate chiller, not a counterflow chiller. Glad to hear your CFC works well as an external heat exchange coil - are you going to continue to use that set-up in your new rig?

And yeah, I don't have any experience with HERMS/mash recirculation yet, but from what I understand, it ought to be much easier to control if the HLT temp is at or slightly above the desired mash liquor temp. Someone else had suggested a technique similar to your old one (HLT temp at mashout temp and controlling HLT flow rate) but I was concerned about how difficult it would be to control and potential large temperature swings (especially during any steps).

I'm looking at keeping the heat-exchange external to the HLT, like you, but am considering using a plate chiller rather than a CFC. A CFC has the advantage that clogging is not a concern but I would want stainless rather than copper which means it would have to be very long (probably 50', like the HERMS coils folks use inside their HLTs).

If a good filter is used to keep any grain particles out of the CFC, it seems like an attractive alternative.

I am interested in the chilling performance of the chillzilla - do you use it to chill boiling wort at the end of the brew cycle? If so, can you estimate chilling performance (tap in temp, tap flow rate, wort flow rate (pumped or gravity), cool wort out temp and total batch size)?

thanks,

-fafrd

Sorry for the delayed response but have been very busy the past few days and haven't been on the Internet. When I build my new system I will probably go with a herms coil in he hlt just because I'm looking at stout tanks and I can have one built into the tank that's SS, but I will probably sell my old chillzilla and get a SS cfc. Think Williams brewing has one. I have never had any problems with the copper but just prefer to have all SS. As far as chilling it does work good with my process and that's why I will probably stick with cfc vs plate. I would like a plate chiller but am very concerned with getting it very clean. I start to recirculate the bk through the chiller about 10 min until end of boil to sanitize and at the end of he boil I pump a full hlt full of water to the mash fun which will be used for cleaning or a 2nd batch (or 3rd). Once that has gone through I dump ice water into the hlt and recirculate back into the hlt. I can have the batch totally chilled in about 20-30 min (11.5gal batch) I do however have access to an ice machine with unlimited ice. I just started chilling this way a few batches ago. Doing it this way is a lot less work than the way I used to do it but takes longer to cool. I used to drop 2 ic's into the bk with the whirlpool and I could get it chilled in about 10 min.
 
The question about Brewers Hardware filter. I do have one and I do use it and it will clog even on a 10 gallon batch when recirculating. I've done it. It is a good filter but it clogs. On my 45 Gallon batches we have a bypass from the chiller to whirlpool with a pump, then settle for 10 minutes. Start chilling running wort through that exact filter. We have a dip tube in the bottom of BK that is left up off the bottom until wort level is down to it, then at the end push dip tub down towards the bottom. Once you get down to the trub level and it picks up some, the flow rate drops down significantly. I think their holes in the filter are actually too small.
It's always about knowing your equipment and design a program that works for it.
There is always a way.
Blichmans BK filters work for 10 gallon batches. But I wouldn't want to recirculate using those either. They depend on the 'settling' stage so you aren't picking up too much trub.

Please don't think I am discouraging the purchase of your plate chiller. Just know how it's going to need to be set up to do what you want. At least your smart enough to ask here. I always had to run head on into these issues then read on how to fix them.:drunk:

I agree 100% on setting up a brewing system that makes brew day quick and simple!!!! My homebrew setup is streamlined so that I can be done quickly, or if I have all day I can make 2,3 or yes 4 batches in a day.
 
The question about Brewers Hardware filter. I do have one and I do use it and it will clog even on a 10 gallon batch when recirculating. I've done it. It is a good filter but it clogs. On my 45 Gallon batches we have a bypass from the chiller to whirlpool with a pump, then settle for 10 minutes. Start chilling running wort through that exact filter. We have a dip tube in the bottom of BK that is left up off the bottom until wort level is down to it, then at the end push dip tub down towards the bottom. Once you get down to the trub level and it picks up some, the flow rate drops down significantly. I think their holes in the filter are actually too small.

This is very helpful, wadefisher, thank you. I'm only going to be doing 5 or 10 gallon batches, so hopefully the filter capacity will be a bit better matched to the total amount of trub I'll be facing.

I was thinking about doing something similar to what you describe above (using a bypass for the recirculation phase and having the dip tube pointing up until the wort level is low and only pointing it down as the wort level reaches the bottom of the kettle). In fact, I've been playing around with ideas for a manual pick-up wand that would allow me to follow the wort level down by hand and would also allow me to try vacuuming up trub during recirculation for trapping in a newly-inserted hop spider if I want to try that technique. I'd be interested in how your pick-up tube was designed to be repositioned partway through the chill - that sounds like a pretty easy solution.

On the filter, the filter getting clogged is one thing, but the more important question for me is if the filter effectively prevents the chiller from getting clogged and also eases the difficulty of cleaning the chiller when the brewing session is complete. Are you happy with this filter and does it make the plate chiller much easier and more practical to use?


Please don't think I am discouraging the purchase of your plate chiller. Just know how it's going to need to be set up to do what you want. At least your smart enough to ask here. I always had to run head on into these issues then read on how to fix them.:drunk:

You have not discouraged me at all and I appreciate the feedback in advance so I can hopefully reduce the number of mistakes I will make.

If a filter like the Brewer's Hardware IL filter does a good job protecting the plate chiller and making it easier to use, that is step one (and good enough for me to invest in one of the filters).

Step two seems like it should now focus on keeping the IL filter from getting clogged. I'm currently planning my system to allow several fall-back options to hopefully be sure I eventually find a solution that works. Your thoughts on what I am planning would be appreciated.

baseline solution (pretty much identical to what you are doing):
-bypass filter/plate chiller during whirlpool recirculation
-allow trub cone to settle
-drain 'up' until wort level is near bottom of kettle and then reposition pick-up tube to drain down
-hope that filter can trap all trub that ends up being sucked into pick-up tube without clogging (5 or 10 gallon batches).

I've never whirlpooled before and I am not sure how successful it is going to be in forming a nice trub pile, so in case whrilpooling alone is not sufficient in keeping the IL filter from getting clogged, my first fall-back solution is as follows:

-after trub cone has formed (or not :) insert tall narrow 300um screened tube as a primary filter (something like what people are using for dry-hopping in corny kegs)
-drain wort with a manual pick-up tube inserted into the filter tube, following the wort level down by hand
(I suppose a Blichman hop blocker in the BK could be used as this primary filter as well, as long as it has a separate valve output so that it can be bypassed during recirculation)

I don't know what the flow-rates are going to be into a filter tube like this or also if it is going to have enough surface area to avoid getting clogged before all of the wort is out, so my second (and last) fall-back solution is the following:

-after trub cone has formed, insert standard diameter stainless hop spider (300m), placing recirculation return tube into center of hop spider
-using pick-up wand, vacuume up trub cone (or as much trub as possible), depositing it into hop spider through recirculation
-wort can either be drained in standard way or using the same manual pick-up tube and primary filter tube (now secondary)

I am probably going to have the Brewer's Hardware IL filter anyway because I want to use the ILF+PC combo for mash recirculation. I'm hoping to get away with just the IL filter for wort chilling as well, but throwing some more 300um mesh at it, I'm pretty sure there is a way to prevent it from getting clogged if it ends up not having enough capacity for my batch sizes...

I agree 100% on setting up a brewing system that makes brew day quick and simple!!!! My homebrew setup is streamlined so that I can be done quickly, or if I have all day I can make 2,3 or yes 4 batches in a day.

I'd be curios on a simple summary of how quickly your 'quick' brew session can be completed and how you would break it down into time spent on prep/getting ready for mash-in, mash, mash-out and sparge, boil, chilling, and clean-up.

-fafrd
 
The question about Brewers Hardware filter. I do have one and I do use it and it will clog even on a 10 gallon batch when recirculating. I've done it. It is a good filter but it clogs. Start chilling running wort through that exact filter. Once you get down to the trub level and it picks up some, the flow rate drops down significantly. I think their holes in the filter are actually too small.

The Brewer's Hardware filter is 500um and then they also offer SS 'filter nets' with mesh sizes of 300um or 200um.

Do you use this filter just with the native 500um holes or with one of the 'filter nets'?

I just found these similar IL filters offered by Glacier tanks for the same price: http://www.glaciertanks.com/TriClamp_Strainers-TriClamp_Strainer_1_1_2.html

The Glacier Tanks filter has native holes of 1/16" (1588um - more than three times larger than the Brewer's Hardware filter) and includes a similar 'filter net' with 150um mesh size (at no extra cost).

1588um is probably too big to keep clogging-sized particles out of the plate chiller, but with this design different sized mesh tubes could be made pretty easily.

For the same money, which of these two filter designs do you think is the better value?

Also, what do you believe would be the ideal mesh size to filter out the particles that could clog a plate chiller without slowing down the flow too much from particles that could have made it through the plate chiller without problem?

-fafrd
 
Also, what do you believe would be the ideal mesh size to filter out the particles that could clog a plate chiller without slowing down the flow too much from particles that could have made it through the plate chiller without problem?

-fafrd
And you said weren't infatuated with plate chillers, hah.
The size of the mesh isn't/shouldn't be a factor for flow, at least with the filters your are looking at. The real concern with mesh size is clogging the filter by going to fine. It seems like even a coarse filter, like the false bottom you would need anyway, would be suitable for preventing too much grain from getting into the PC. A PC should be able to handle a few bits here and there. Just blast them out after the mash.

That said, I still don't see the appeal of the PC. You seem to go by just the hard numbers- size, captive volume, thermal efficiency, price/btu, etc. If you were to add some soft variables into the equation- uncertainty, hassle, complexity, failure modes, etc., you might choose differently.

Of course, there are some things that don't have to satisfy some cost/peformance/benefit analysis- you simply want to have it to play with. If that is the case here, it would be simpler to justify it that way. Personally, I go with usability/simplicity when there are alternate solutions; and save the complexity for devices that solve problems without simple alternative solutions, or for add-ons that could actually impact the final product.

You seem like you are sorting out a bunch of questions that are all over the map. Some of your questions aren't really relevant, or practical. Take pumps- there is no way to 'suck' up anything with a handheld wand with the available pumps, since they are not self-priming. Similarly, your question about using a siphon to 'hand follow' the wort to deal with trub is a PITA. I only do this when I have a failure due to clogging. I do ~15 gal batches, so time is the big issue, but starting/restarting the siphon is a close second, and would be first if I was doing 5 gals. It isn't easy no matter how you do it, and even harder if you are alone.

If you haven't actually started brewing (again) yet, you might try getting a very simple brewing setup just to try things out. I am biased, but I would suggest starting out with a gravity BIAB system using a SS pot and boiling basket. Concord on Ebay has combos for ~$100, and there are many other choices for not much more. All you need to complete your hot side is to add a $5-10 voile bag, which are available pre-made, or DIY with fabric. Add a SS chiller (they are .020" wall, not .002" as I stated earlier) for ~$70 and a KAB6 banjo burner, and you are only into your rig for ~$300. Most of it you could unload for not much loss, if you upgrade and have no further use for it.

On the fermentation/serving side, you can go as cheap or as nice as you want. There aren't a lot of tough decisions (at least not for me) to make on the cold side, since it is almost strictly a money issue- conical, better bottle, or bucket; freezer/fridge, water bath, or hall closet; kegs or bottles, keezer or beater fridge; Perlick 545SS, generic chrome faucets, plastic cobra tap, church key.


Some 'soft' things to consider when designing your system are:
complexity (how much can you tolerate, for more than one batch)
simplicity (how much can you tolerate, for more than one batch)
batch size (a functional dual batch size is a myth)
failure modes (how many things can go wrong)
failure recovery (what is worst/typical case scenario to recover)
storage size (how much will the wife tolerate)
 
cwi - you've raised a slew of valid points (as usual). I appreciate your challenge on many of the concepts I have raised (which probably appear to be 'all over the map' because I have the luxury of a clean-sheet build and can reconsider/re-architect virtually any part of the system).

I'll do my best to break various points apart and consider in sequence:

The size of the mesh isn't/shouldn't be a factor for flow, at least with the filters your are looking at. The real concern with mesh size is clogging the filter by going to fine. It seems like even a coarse filter, like the false bottom you would need anyway, would be suitable for preventing too much grain from getting into the PC. A PC should be able to handle a few bits here and there. Just blast them out after the mash.

I'd rather invest in a filter and reduce the amount of time I need to put into blasting bits out of a plate chiller, but I think you are right, the false bottom should keep particles larger than 2mm or so out of the mash liquor (the holes on my false bottom are .09375" (1.5 1/16" or 2380um).

I'll probably have a in-line filter with something like the 500um filter size as a 'last line of defense' for the plate chiller. I'd much rather have problems clogging my filter than clogging the chiller.

The two options I am considering include:

a/ including bypass plumbing so that I can recirculate the mash with no filter+chiller in the loop until the wort is running clear

b/ adding a finer screen with a mesh size of 500um on top of my false bottom and recirculating directly through the ILF+PC (though I am worried this may result in more frequent stuck mashes, so I am leaning towards a/)

Your thoughts on what mesh size is 'too fine' would be appreciated.

That said, I still don't see the appeal of the PC. You seem to go by just the hard numbers- size, captive volume, thermal efficiency, price/btu, etc. If you were to add some soft variables into the equation- uncertainty, hassle, complexity, failure modes, etc., you might choose differently.

For sure. I am not taking the most conservative and least complex avenue. On the other hand, the time to take risks is at the beginning - once the system is working well, it is unlikely I will ever make significant changes and by taking risk in the initial concept, I have the 'tried and true' solutions available as my fall back. In fact, I am architecting the system to fall back to a standard HERMS or RIMS rig with only minor changes.

The appeal of a plate chiller is that for the ~$200 I want to spend on heat exchange, plate chillers are significantly faster than even the all-copper CFC chillers. This ends up translating into the speed of any steps in the mash schedule (including mashout).

I'll probably end up feeling like a fool when I have tried all of this out and it has failed, but hopefully we will all learn something from that experience, and so on that basis alone it is worth the effort to me.

Of course, there are some things that don't have to satisfy some cost/peformance/benefit analysis- you simply want to have it to play with. If that is the case here, it would be simpler to justify it that way. Personally, I go with usability/simplicity when there are alternate solutions; and save the complexity for devices that solve problems without simple alternative solutions, or for add-ons that could actually impact the final product.

I'll probably end up feeling like a fool when I have tried all of this out and it has failed, but hopefully we will all learn something from that experience, and so on that basis alone it is worth the effort to me. If nothing interesting or useful can possibly emerge from the exercise, then I agree with you that I am just playing. I believe there are some interesting things I am trying that could prove useful, including:

-Many HERMS set-ups compensate for lack of efficiency in the HERMS coil by overheating the HLT liquor. This is inherently a bit less stable than if the mash liquor is heated exactly to HLT temperature and also means that when mashout is done, the HLT liquor is likely to be heated to higher than sparge temperature. I think with my plate-chiller-based HERMS rig, I will be able to maintain the mash to within less than 0.5 degree F of the HLT temp.

-The benefit of plate chillers for wort chilling is clear (faster, less tap water consumed, more compact) but they are avoided because of the potential for clogging and the more complex cleaning procedures. If I can find a practical way to keep a plate chiller clean by using a few filters so that cleaning a plate chiller is really no more difficult than cleaning a CFC, hopefully that would be a valuable datapoint for the brewing community.

You seem like you are sorting out a bunch of questions that are all over the map. Some of your questions aren't really relevant, or practical. Take pumps- there is no way to 'suck' up anything with a handheld wand with the available pumps, since they are not self-priming.

In terms of being all over the map, guilty as charged. In terms of vacuuming up trub by using a pump to 'suck', I beg to differ. There are at least three ways to establish a wand as a primed BK output (suction hose):

i/ my system is rigged to that 'filtered tap water' into the BK goes through a wand attached to the pump intake manifold. That siphon is maintained all the way through to BK recirculation, so the input wand is pre-primed and can be used for suction as the BK output.

ii/ if two pumps are used so that the wort recirculation pump is separate from the wort chilling pump, the pumps can use BK input/output in opposite directions. Following sparge, wand has been used as output. Recirculation pump can use that same wand as input. When 'vacuuming' and recirculation are done, chilling can go back to using standard kettle output.

iii/ with only a single pump, a bit of plumbing can be added to allow BK output and BK input to be reversed using valves. Recirculate from bottom kettle valve through to wand as BK input, the switch so that wand becomes pre-primed BK output and bottom kettle valve becomes kettle input.

Similarly, your question about using a siphon to 'hand follow' the wort to deal with trub is a PITA. I only do this when I have a failure due to clogging. I do ~15 gal batches, so time is the big issue, but starting/restarting the siphon is a close second, and would first if I was doing 5 gals. It isn't easy no matter how you do it, and even harder if you are alone.

I really appreciate this comment - without having tried it yet, I have no idea how much of a PITA this semi-manual process would be. As I stated in the earlier post, my hope is that whirl pooling is successful enough that I can chill without clogging my ILF. This 'hand follow' of the wort and the 'trub vacuuming' idea were both intended only as fall-back solutions in case whirl pooling alone does not work well enough to keep the ILF filter clear.

With your experience (and knowing that I seem committed to trying to make a go of chilling with the ILF+PC combo), I would greatly appreciate your thoughts as to what solutions to plan for as fall-backs in the case that whirl pooling does not work well enough for me.

Your comment has caused me to think about another aspect - I probably need a plan for what to do if/when the ILF filter does get clogged. This is something I have not thought about before, and for example, maybe I should plan to have a valve between the ILF and the PC so I can cut off, remove ILF, and clean it in before reconnecting. Siphon should be maintained in this case, so restarting with the cleaned ILF should not be a problem. Again, any thoughts appreciated.

If you haven't actually started brewing (again) yet, you might try getting a very simple brewing setup just to try things out. I am biased, but I would suggest starting out with a gravity BIAB system using a SS pot and boiling basket. Concord on Ebay has combos for ~$100, and there are many other choices for not much more. All you need to complete your hot side is to add a $5-10 voile bag, which are available pre-made, or DIY with fabric. Add a SS chiller (they are .020" wall, not .002" as I stated earlier) for ~$70 and a KAB6 banjo burner, and you are only into your rig for ~$300. Most of it you could unload for not much loss, if you upgrade and have no further use for it.

Guilty as charged - I've been sampling a great many new beer styles in anticipation of my renewed brewing, but have not recently brewed anything besides a hard cider. I appreciate your suggestions on a system and have thought seriously about a system very similar to what you have suggested. Here are the reasons I have decided to build a mash+lauter system rather than BIAB:

- lifting the grain bag is not something that appeals to me. For 5 gallon batches with 10-12 lbs of grain, it's probably not a big deal (should weigh something like 20-24 lbs wet, right?), but for 10 gallon batches, it seems like a PITA.

-can't know until I have experimented, but mashing that wet (3.3 quarts / lb) seems like a risk factor, at least for some beer stlyes.

-lost mash efficiency is not a big deal to me, but variability in outcome is, and from what others who have tried both standard lauter+sparge and BIAB have written, it seems like repeatability with BIAB is harder to achieve.

On the other hand, you've made me think about trying a BIAB or two with the parts I have already purchased. I have a 42qt Concord pot+basket for my MLT on the way along with a 80qt Concord for the BK. I was going to toss the basket but am now thinking I might be able to use it to try BIAB in the BK.

I need to get a bag, a pump and complete my RIMS tube. Recirculate through the RIMS tube until mash is done, lift the grain basket and drain, do all the usual stuff for boil and hops (I already have a burner), and then use my old copper+hose CFC to chill into the FV. I could even go with direct flame during recirculation and hold off on completing the heating element/RIMS/PID for now.

Food for thought (and thanks for triggering it).

On the fermentation/serving side, you can go as cheap or as nice as you want. There aren't a lot of tough decisions (at least not for me) to make on the cold side, since it is almost strictly a money issue- conical, better bottle, or bucket; freezer/fridge, water bath, or hall closet; kegs or bottles, keezer or beater fridge; Perlick 545SS, generic chrome faucets, plastic cobra tap, church key.

Not concerned about the cold side for now - I have all my old carboys and corney set-up. Was just getting into lagers when I stopped and will need to get a new beer fridge set-up if/when I get back into that style, but I would start with some nice bitters anyway, so nothing additional needed for that :mug:

Some 'soft' things to consider when designing your system are:
complexity (how much can you tolerate, for more than one batch)
simplicity (how much can you tolerate, for more than one batch)
batch size (a functional dual batch size is a myth)
failure modes (how many things can go wrong)
failure recovery (what is worst/typical case scenario to recover)
storage size (how much will the wife tolerate)

I appreciate all of these inputs.

-complexity - I can tolerate a great deal of complexity (in fact I prefer it, if I truly believe significant time savings or an improved result justifies it). I would rather brew less frequently with a more complex system that more often with a simpler system.

-simplicity - I'm all for it as long as too much flexibility is not sacrificed and the final result justifies the effort.

-batch size - this is one of the most important inputs you have provided to me and I would like to understand more about why you think a functional dual 5 or 10 gallon system is a myth (more below).

-failure modes - especially in the areas where I am taking some risk, I do think a lot about potential failures and fall-back solutions. These exchanges with you and others on HBT are invaluable to lower the areas where I have not thought things through in advance. I know it is impossible to plan for every contingency and inevitably something is going to sneak up and bite me, but hopefully this effort will allow the ground clutter to be cleared so that is only complex failure modes I will find myself dealing with.

-failure recovery - obviously putting a lot f though into recovery from filter clogs. Pumps losing prime and adding bleeder valves are an area I need to think more about. Any other failure you think I should be planning to recover from would be helpful.

-storage size - good input, but more for the future (and related to cold-side planning). Did not have the wife and the family when I last brewed in grad school, so this will be new, but I'm confident I will be able to manage that when the time comes (the family has already survived my obsessions with smoking and beekeeping :D)

Back to batch size. I've planned the system for 5 and 10-gallon batches and if there are reasons this is impractical, I would appreciate knowing them. I'm also starting to get interested in the idea of dual 5+5 gallon brewing sessions (possibly using HERMS for the first and BIAB for the second).

Here is what I have decided so far:

MLT - this seems to be the heart of the system and I have a 42 quart 13"D x 16"H pot for this. Should be good for 5-gallon batches without issue including the rare heavy beer I may want to brew. For light 10 gallon batches it should be fine, and possibly also for medium-bodied brews like ESB (depending on brewhouse efficiency). I'm starting with a smaller and cheaper MLT with the idea that I will upgrade if it turns out not to be sufficient for 10 gallon batches of the beers I want to brew and I find that I prefer 10 gallon batches. If I decide to invest in an upgrade to a 15 gallon MLT for 10 gallon batches, I want to understand my system first (so this is a planned potential limitation).

BK - I've gone with a 20 gallon BK to be able to brew 10 gallon batches without issue. When I was considering an immersion chiller, the height differences between 5 (7) gallon batches and 10 (13.5) gallon batches was one of the factors that made CFC plate chillers more attractive. Going with CFC or plate, I believe I should have no problem to brew either 5 or 10 gallon batches in this 20 gallon BK, but if there is a concern I have missed, I would appreciate the input.

HLT - still on the fence here. I will need at least a 15 gallon HLT if I want to brew 10 gallon batches but may also go with a 20 gallon HLT if I like the first 20 gallon pot I purchased. To start, I have my old 7 gallon brew-pot which I can use as an HLT for 5 gallon batches. Assuming the modest incremental cost is secondary and the additional space required does not cause a problem, it seems like a larger HLT is better. This assumes it is insulated so heat loss is equivalent. The only real advantages I can see to using a 20 gallon HLT is that it would provide a greater heat buffer during steps including mashout and it would allow pretty much all of the hot chilling effluent to be captured in the HLT rather than spilled out.

Any other inputs you have on dual 5 or 10 gallon batches as well as 5+5 two-batch brewing would be greatly appreciated...

-fafrd
 
cwi - you've raised a slew of valid points (as usual). I appreciate your challenge on many of the concepts I have raised (which probably appear to be 'all over the map' because I have the luxury of a clean-sheet build and can reconsider/re-architect virtually any part of the system).
A lot of this is outside the scope of this thread, since the viability of using a PC as a HEX has been made clear to most. There is also so much going on/up in the air, its hard to find a place to start, other than to ask if you took your ADD meds today. Here goes- I think it's tough to do a clean-sheet build when you don't have much, if any, experience with the methods you are designing for, and some of the techniques you are counting on are your own new ideas. After a few brews trying out various things, you will have a better idea. Many things can be tested using simple tools- like whirlpooling with a spoon. Try it with a heavily hop-bursted IPA with either pellets and/or cones loose in the boil, and you will likely see it fail miserably, and not because of the spoon.

I'd much rather have problems clogging my filter than clogging the chiller.
including bypass plumbing so that I can recirculate the mash with no filter+chiller in the loop until the wort is running clear
Your thoughts on what mesh size is 'too fine' would be appreciated.
Clogging either is a PITA. Having to deal with that mid-brew, as has been posted, is not fun.
This is easy. Just don't hard plumb everything, and stick the hose back in the tun.
It's going to based heavily on your mill, grind, recirc time, if you are a bed stirrer, etc. As coarse a mesh as possible is best. Filters clog, it's what they are designed to do.

For sure. I am not taking the most conservative and least complex avenue. On the other hand, the time to take risks is at the beginning - once the system is working well, it is unlikely I will ever make significant changes and by taking risk in the initial concept, I have the 'tried and true' solutions available as my fall back. In fact, I am architecting the system to fall back to a standard HERMS or RIMS rig with only minor changes.
Once you have a bunch of gear and fittings, converting to any style system isn't that difficult. Some things are repurposed more easily than others, PCs not being one of them, but the upcharge for a few pieces to try a new method usually won't be that great.

I am not sure of the logic you are using, but it's for your own benefit, so it must make sense to you. I just don't see why it is necessary to start out with the most complicated unknown approach, and then pare down what doesn't work, because otherwise you will never try a different method. You are either a tinkerer, or not. That you are trying to dream up so many new methods, even before you've tried out any of the proven techniques you wan to use, sounds like you would not have issues with changing things from time to time, if not weekly. You know you best, though.

Like I commented previously, you seem determined to use a plate chiller, and justify it because its gigagrams/microfarads ratio is superior to any other technology. It is a bit comical to see all the threads where they warn you against using a PC for a HERMS, but you steadfastly proceed with responses like 'I understand, but if you had to use a PC to do this, what kind of measures would you use to minimize the fatal flaws in its design when used for this application'.

The appeal of a plate chiller is that for the ~$200 I want to spend on heat exchange, plate chillers are significantly faster than even the all-copper CFC chillers. This ends up translating into the speed of any steps in the mash schedule (including mashout).
You will likely see little difference in performance between a well designed coil HEX vs. a PC hex, especially for equivalent price. The flows are so slow through the HEX, it doesn't really matter unless you are restricted to some maximum weight and size so that it will fit in the nose cone for the manned mission to Mars you are hoping to pilot. It just isn't an issue.

More important is being able to control the HEX bath temps as easily as possible. I doubt the in vs. out temp would be any different for a plate vs. coil. Even more important, since your PC, or even CFC, is remote from the bath causing some temp loss on the way there, this adds another layer of temperature control complexity to juggle. With an IC in a bath, you just set the exact temp you want, and call it good. Using a smaller dedicated pot for a HEX IC and HEX bath, you will get all the controlled step response you need for the typical flows. For mashout, there is no real bath temp limit, and you can even direct fire the tun if you have a burner. There are also other ways to do a mashout that are faster than any type of HEX.


I'll probably end up feeling like a fool when I have tried all of this out and it has failed, but hopefully we will all learn something from that experience, and so on that basis alone it is worth the effort to me.
I think most people are just trying to save you some hassle. If you prefer to learn through experience, or just really can't live without a shiny .1GigaHz/uLambda plate chiller in your system, there is not much help to be offered that hasn't been given, since everyone who has responded so far has abandoned their attempts. The carnage has been listed. In trying, you will learn more than just that PCs aren't a good choice for a HEX (or chiller IMO). Fighting with it will give you a lot of experience with other issues as well, which may come in handy at other times. So it won't be a total loss if you abandon it.

-Many HERMS set-ups compensate for lack of efficiency in the HERMS coil by overheating the HLT liquor.
Many plate chiller users don't know that there is a growing wad of smegma in their chiller that is the cause of the contamination in their last 3 batches. This doesn't mean that all PC users fail to understand proper care and usage. Similarly, overtemping the HEX bath and output is a bad approach that I know some use, but it is rarely due to inefficiency of the HERMS. It is usually because they don't insulate their tun, and need more heat to get the dial thermometer sticking 4" into their mash bed up to temp. What they usually don't understand is they are overheating their mash, which is the liquid, and not the spent grain that is really little more than a sponge shortly after dough-in. Temps for HERMS are usually measured entering and exiting the HEX, and a third at the tun exit if wanted. A dial thermo mid mash might be a good backup, but is only good as a sanity check, not a reliable measurement. Personally I don't like a bunch of crap sticking into the tun, because I stir, even after dough in. The lid is where that stuff belongs.

For an external HEX, your .5F goal for temp correlation between HEX bath and HEX exit is a bit of a pipe dream, because you will likely have that just going from HEX bath to the remote PC/HEX. You can put another sensor on the HEX hot input, and then juggle the offset between that and the HEX bath to figure out a setting, which will also depend on the weather.

-The benefit of plate chillers for wort chilling is clear (faster, less tap water consumed, more compact) but they are avoided because of the potential for clogging and the more complex cleaning procedures. If I can find a practical way to keep a plate chiller clean by using a few filters so that cleaning a plate chiller is really no more difficult than cleaning a CFC, hopefully that would be a valuable datapoint for the brewing community.
The benefits of a PC for chilling wort a routinely exaggerated. And we have yet another metric where PCs are the undisputed king- water conservation. PCs and CFCs have an advantage when doing direct/single pass chilling to the ferm vessel. To do this they need a supply of water cold enough to get adequate wort flow at pitching temp. If pre-chillers are needed, some of their advantage is lost due to complexity and introduced temperature control issues. If the tap water is not significantly colder than pitching temp, they will likely use MORE water in single pass mode than an immersion chiller doing kettle chills which can be done at a slower feed rate as temp deltas decrease (if water conservation is desired). This is especially true if the IC is switched to a recirc ice bath for the final temp drop- something not practical with single pass PCs. And really, the amount of water used isn't all that great- save it for cleaning, water the yard, don't take a shower on brew day, pee in the bushes while brewing instead of going inside, etc.

Also, using a PC or CFC for kettle recirc cooling seems odd to me, but only because I value simplicity over TeraOhms/milliPhotons maximization.


In terms of being all over the map, guilty as charged. In terms of vacuuming up trub by using a pump to 'suck', I beg to differ. There are at least three ways to establish a wand as a primed BK output (suction hose):

Don't forget to sterilize your sterile food safe underwater video camera so you can see the hot break you are trying to vacuum off the bottom of the kettle. Maybe you should apply for the Google Glasses with this as the application. You could have a virtual kettle bottom overlaid on the surface.

I seriously doubt any of those approaches will work. Trying to hoover trub, would be like trying to hoover a cloud without sucking in any sky or scattering them with air currents from the motion, while blindfolded. Not to mention the difficulties in starting the vacuum by firing up a pump with a primed hose, and getting the business end down in the kettle before it loses suction.

I really appreciate this comment - without having tried it yet, I have no idea how much of a PITA this semi-manual process would be. As I stated in the earlier post, my hope is that whirl pooling is successful enough that I can chill without clogging my ILF.
Not going to happen with hoppy beers and kettle chilling. At least not without a hop bag/spider of some sort. If you allow cold break and finer trub through the filter, then maybe. With single pass chilling, it is possible with moderate hops, and no issue if a spider/bag is used. For reference, I have a 26G kettle doing BIAB for ~18G post boil. The last IPA I did with ~1.5 lbs of hops had a solid 5G/4" of slurry. I let the trub settle over night as a test, and was only able to get ~.75G/.5" off the top. My grind was a bit tight, and I had some extra flour, but it wasn't that different from similar brews, or even brews done with fly sparging. There is no way that amount of crap was going to make a trub cone, and my kettle is even oversized (diameter wise) for the batch size.

There just aren't many ways to get around the effects of brewing hoppy beers. Either use spiders/bags/etc., or plan on losing a lot of product to absorption and trub.

Here are the reasons I have decided to build a mash+lauter system rather than BIAB:
- lifting the grain bag is not something that appeals to me. For 5 gallon batches with 10-12 lbs of grain, it's probably not a big deal (should weigh something like 20-24 lbs wet, right?), but for 10 gallon batches, it seems like a PITA.
-lost mash efficiency is not a big deal to me, but variability in outcome is, and from what others who have tried both standard lauter+sparge and BIAB have written, it seems like repeatability with BIAB is harder to achieve.

RE:BIAB lifting the bag is a hassle, but so is fly sparging for an hour, even without sticking your sparge. BTW, you still have to lift that same weight of grain with fly, you will just do it a scoop at a time. BIAB is faster; the product doesn't suffer; and numbers are easier to hit than with fly. I think that with a basket, a 12G (to the fermenter) batch is doable even without a hoist. It is approaching the limit for sure, and would definitely be easier with one. A 5 gallon batch is a joke even without a basket. If someone is complaining about hoisting a 5G batch BIAB, I don't know how they made it past extract and steeping grains without either giving up, or needing an engine crane to help dump their yeast packet.

BIAB, and batch sparging, are much more predictable than fly sparging. It's a fixed game. The problem is not many software packages calculate it properly. There is a formula for batch from guy who solved the math for batch, and hosts it on his web page. There is a spreadsheet by an Aussie (Stux) called CE-BIABcalc that is the current champion for BIAB calculators.
Fly sparge eff is a WAG, especially first time with a recipe. There are many things that can go wrong with a fly sparge. Even if you hold your tongue just the same way as the last time, there are still some thing that are hard to repeat. It can be done, but there is no way it is as easy or predictable as batch or BIAB/MIAB. If the software would catch up to the knowledge base, it would be even easier.
Mashes up to 4qts/lb have been verified to cause no issues- check BrauKaiser, I think.
Fly sparging definitely gets points for style, and when it works out right, it's a definite achievement.

On the other hand, you've made me think about trying a BIAB or two with the parts I have already purchased. I have a 42qt Concord pot+basket for my MLT on the way along with a 80qt Concord for the BK. I was going to toss the basket but am now thinking I might be able to use it to try BIAB in the BK.
Not sure how using a small basket in a big pot would work for either a 5G or 10G. The water depth needs to submerge the grain, but not overtop the basket/bag. Rule of thumb for BIAB, is ~twice the kettle volume for final post boil volume. You can cheat it a little by doing a dunk or pour sparge, or sacrificing some efficiency. You could easily do a ~6G batch in the 42Qt pot. That is close to the ideal size, and you could one hand the basket.

I need to get a bag, a pump and complete my RIMS tube.
Now you are also going to add a RIMS tube? A RIMS tube will blow your .5F mash tolerance out of the water. The localized heating around the element is a widely held drawback to RIMS. I think you just went off the map entirely. Although, I think you may be talking about a closed circuit e-HERMS. Still, don't expect miracles from PID control in that scenario. It's not magic.

Direct fire mash input works, but it does have some localized heating, especially with no clad bottom and a concentrated burner. It will limit your insulation options also.

Not concerned about the cold side for now - I have all my old carboys and corney set-up.
The cornies are still usable, but the glass carboys should go in the dumpster. Refer to the broken carboy horror stories thread. Not very kid friendly, either.

Back to batch size. I've planned the system for 5 and 10-gallon batches and if there are reasons this is impractical, I would appreciate knowing them. I'm also starting to get interested in the idea of dual 5+5 gallon brewing sessions (possibly using HERMS for the first and BIAB for the second).
That is a lot of balls to have in the air on brew day. If one beer is a simple house beer you can abandon at times, maybe. What happens when SHTF? I would guess that a second brew would add at least three hours without essentially having two systems, and even a simultaneous BIAB would add about that much. There is only so much multi-tasking that can happen. Maybe if you brewed barefoot, and had good toe-eye coordination, I could see snipping a packet of yeast open, and sprinkling it in the rehydrating bottle, while doughing in your second brew with a free foot/hand. For me, there is enough going on with one brew to keep me entertained, and any more action/panic would just make things less enjoyable.

The issues with brewing half batches are the losses- from heat in the mash from the dead air space, to losses in the kettles/tuns/hoses/etc. which are larger than needed, to the extra boil off from the bigger pot, etc. Trying to go bigger on a small system is even worse with boil overs, mash capacity issues, etc. Systems have their sweet spot. Also, unless you normally ferment in 2 half-batch vessels (which many 10G batchers do), you will have to use a different vessel for half-batches.

With your choice of unequal size pots, you already have the makings for a 5 or 10g system, at least with doing a 5G BIAB, or even a 10G BIAB, but only because you really sized your pot for 15G, but can't reach that without another larger vessel for a 15G sized MLT. You design things like a 1 man committee.

RE: capacities. There are tools like CanYouMash It (that should be all one word, but the curse robot tagged it otherwise) for tun sizing, or the BIAB tool mentioned earlier.

RE: IC for batch size- Yet another magical property of the PC- it fits any size batch, perfectly. A smaller batch may not be exposed to all the coils, but it is also a smaller batch, so chill time will be approx the same. Most people can adjust the spacing on the coils by raising and lowering the upper leg of the IC. If you have them spread out for a large batch, you can squish it for a smaller one. Also, a normal sized IC fully compacted should only be ~1/2 the height of your pot, so it should squish to a smaller batch if needed. If it won't squish, it is either a very small diam coil for the pot, or is oversized. The former is an odd design choice, and latter will provide more than enough chilling power.

RE:HLT
There are other options for HLTs these days. The cheap instant propane water heaters are becoming popular for strike/sparge water. The HEX bath and HLT do not have to be the same pot, and it's more flexible if they aren't. A smallish HEX bath allow for faster steps, and almost any quantity of water provides enough buffer and battery for stable mash temps. For faster mash outs, the lack of heat battery capacity can be overcome by heating the tun (if the insulation is removed); a quick batch sparge to the kettle for heat; a mash out water infusion from the instant hot water heater, etc. Again, having the utmost in performance isn't really necessary. Is it really going to make a difference if the mashout takes 3.4 minutes longer?
 
Back
Top