RIMS vs. HERMS

I'm thinking of doing a serious upgrade to my brewing setup this winter, assuming I get a good Christmas bonus. I'm sure this will start a debate, but I'd like to hear about the benefits of a HERMS system vs. RIMS.

I found this RIMS controller: http://home.woh.rr.com/paragonbrewing/index.html

The price is right - I'm not sure if it would work with a HERMS system, though.

alemonkey said:

I'm thinking of doing a serious upgrade to my brewing setup this winter, assuming I get a good Christmas bonus. I'm sure this will start a debate, but I'd like to hear about the benefits of a HERMS system vs. RIMS.

I found this RIMS controller: http://home.woh.rr.com/paragonbrewing/index.html

The price is right - I'm not sure if it would work with a HERMS system, though.

Click to expand...

Almost too much info to list in a single post. Suffice it to say, a well designed HERMS is the way to go if you are dead set on doing a recirculating mashing system (RMS). However, things like your heat source and your probe placement will be key in getting something that you are happy with. For more biased information, go here:

http://sdcollins.home.mindspring.com

There are good arguments for direct contact systems (RIMS), and I am sure they are valid. I thought everything through and chose the HERMS approach. But, I would have to say that your overall system design is going to have more impact than your choice of RIMS or HERMS. I've seen well designed RIMS that I would take over some of the poorly designed HERMS I've seen any day of the week.

Prosit!

Has anybody ever thought of reversing the flow in a HERMS/RMS system so that the heated wort is forced in through the bottom. This way you should be able to maintain a higher flow rate and get a better distribution of the heated wort in the mash.

Kai

That would mess up the grain bed so you would have to switch it around after mash out to reset the grain bed.

You would have to figure out how you would suck the liquid off the top of the grain bed also....

Monster Mash said:

That would mess up the grain bed so you would have to switch it around after mash out to reset the grain bed.

Click to expand...

Yes that is expected. But it is that mess-up that should lead to a better mixing of the mash.

You would have to figure out how you would suck the liquid off the top of the grain bed also....

Click to expand...

True, I think you should be able to lower the upper manifold below the wort level.

Kai

There's really no point in recirculating the opposite way. It would be a serious PITA, and for what gain? You'll definitely get total conversion...with or without recirculation. And it would take away the single benefit I see in recirculating, which is the improved clarity. I just don't see any gain at all in "better mixing of the mash". When was the last time you got less than complete conversion?

Personally, I think these things are overcomplicated solutions to a fairly simple problem, but for people who like that sort of thing, they are fun. They don't make better or worse beer than a simple infusion system all other things being equal.

If you want one, I think HERMS has distinct advantages, but, again, is more complex than RIMS. I've only ever had a RIMS, but one of the disadvantages was caramelization of the wort as it came in contact with the heating element. HERMS would eliminate that.

In general, RIMS and HERMS remind me of that game "Mousetrap"

Cheers

I got the idea from a mash-tun design, where the whole mash (grains and liquid) are constantly pumped through a heated tube in order to raise and keep the mash temp.

When designing a heated mash system I'm also interested in being able to heat up the mash evenly. With the constant recirculating I'm afraid that, through channeling and the increased flow rate necessary, it will not be possible to heat the mash evenly.

But than again, I haven't build or used one and I'm just throwing my thoughts out here for discussion.

Kai

Believe it or not, I'm sorta on Janx's side here. If you can't make good, or even great beer, with a traditional mashing system, it's pretty pointless to invest time and money into a HERMS in hopes that it will actually improve anything. It won't. In the end, the skill lies with the brewer. I think your ability to formulate recipes, handle your yeast properly, and control fermentation temperatures have a lot more impact on your beer than your choice of mashing systems. A well designed Recirulating Mashing System (RMS) can enhance your ability to fine tune things, but it's no replacement for knowledge and experience.

Regarding the reverse recirculation concept. Yes, I did consider it. I gave it a lot of thought, drew some pictures, contemplated equipment and promptly dismissed it as silly. Why? Because it is. If you design your system correctly, your wort IS heated evenly. In a typical 5-6 gallon batch sized mash, you will have around 4 gallons of liquid (give or take). At 1 gallon per minute (typical), you are recirculating the entire mash through your heat source every 4 minutes. Channeling? Maybe, but it will be minor. What you are looking for is conversion, clarity, and efficiency. Conversion is a no brainer, it happens no matter what. Clarity you can see, and efficiency you can measure. I think you'll find that all of these will be excellent in a top-bottom type RMS. Reversing the flow will ruin clarity for sure and also introduce some other varibles that I think will make controlling temperature more difficult. Suffice it to say, I think the concept is interesting, but impractical with suspect benefits.

Janx said:

If you want one, I think HERMS has distinct advantages, but, again, is more complex than RIMS. I've only ever had a RIMS, but one of the disadvantages was caramelization of the wort as it came in contact with the heating element. HERMS would eliminate that.

Click to expand...

That's been my big concern about RIMS - the idea of a heating element directly contacting my wort worries me. I would assume it's not a problem on a properly designed system, though.

It seems I would need a more complicated (and thus more expensive) controller for HERMS. I'm still feeling out the prices on both systems. Price isn't the main factor, but it does come into play.

The elephant in the middle of the room is the question of the necessity of steps. It is sort of the whole protein rest issue all over again. I do understand the benefit of temperature control and mash-out... and there are those #&@!! wheat beers... but if you can manage with single infusion why mess with it. I can't see that you would get the benefits of decoction.

But who am I to talk? If you want the toys, GO FOR IT!

Brewpastor said:

The elephant in the middle of the room is the question of the necessity of steps. It is sort of the whole protein rest issue all over again. I do understand the benefit of temperature control and mash-out... and there are those #&@!! wheat beers... but if you can manage with single infusion why mess with it. I can't see that you would get the benefits of decoction.

But who am I to talk? If you want the toys, GO FOR IT!

Click to expand...

Excellent point. Step mashing is often coupled with decoction. The decoction step itself will probably have more impact on the finished beer than simply stepping through the various temperature rests. And yes, I totally agree about stepping in general. I think it is an over-emphasized practice that creates more problems than benefits for the average homebrewer.

alemonkey said:

...It seems I would need a more complicated (and thus more expensive) controller for HERMS. I'm still feeling out the prices on both systems. Price isn't the main factor, but it does come into play.

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any difference between controllers for RIMS or HERMS. A standard PID controller will do fine for either one. The key is; what is the controller actually controlling?

In a way, the RIMS people have it figured out better than the HERMS people do. They have their controllers controlling power to the heating element that actually heats the wort. I've seen HERMS people have their controllers control power to the pump, or even a set of solenoid by-pass valves around the heat source. Neither of these HERMS approaches actually controls the temprature of the wort exiting the heat source. The other aspect is thermocouple placement. Another bugaboo that's too long to post here. Suffice it to say, unless your controller has direct control over the actual temperature of the wort exiting your heat source, you're not gaining much in the way of temperature control.

I still like the HERMS approach when it's properly designed. The scorching issue of direct contact has always bothered me.

Brewpastor said:

The elephant in the middle of the room is the question of the necessity of steps. It is sort of the whole protein rest issue all over again. I do understand the benefit of temperature control and mash-out... and there are those #&@!! wheat beers... but if you can manage with single infusion why mess with it. I can't see that you would get the benefits of decoction.

But who am I to talk? If you want the toys, GO FOR IT!

Click to expand...

I've done step mashes with a regular infusion - it's not hard to do since Promash calculates it all for you. But, I've never noticed much of a difference.

The main reason I'm interested in a RIMS or HERMS is the ability to more accurately control my mash temperature. About 95% of the time I hit my strike temp dead on with a regular old infusion. But, I still mess it up every now and then.

The other reason is because I'm thinking about getting a pump anyway, to save my back. I'd rather let the pump lift wort and hot water than me. Plus, I want to upgrade to a 10 gallon system, so I'll need a new kettle and mash tun no matter what.

Plus, I like gadgets

alemonkey said:

...The main reason I'm interested in a RIMS or HERMS is the ability to more accurately control my mash temperature. About 95% of the time I hit my strike temp dead on with a regular old infusion. But, I still mess it up every now and then.

The other reason is because I'm thinking about getting a pump anyway, to save my back. I'd rather let the pump lift wort and hot water than me. Plus, I want to upgrade to a 10 gallon system, so I'll need a new kettle and mash tun no matter what.

Plus, I like gadgets

Click to expand...

Definitely a worthwhile effort. The ability to add heat to your mash is a big advantage of an RMS. You are dead right, sometimes, you just screw up your initial strike temps and the mash doesn't end up where you want it. An RMS makes it very easy to heat up the whole thing a few degrees fairly quickly. Pumps are also handy even if you don't have an RMS. You can use them to vorlauf instead of manually doing this. The results are much better and faster too.

I hope you are considering a converted keg for your new kettle. And did I mention kettle screens......

Prosit!

Brewpastor said:

But who am I to talk? If you want the toys, GO FOR IT!

Click to expand...

I've seen pics of your garage, and I'd say you're NOBODY to talk when it comes to toys!

tnlandsailor said:

I hope you are considering a converted keg for your new kettle. And did I mention kettle screens......

Prosit!

Click to expand...

I hadn't even considered anything else - I have an 8 gallon keg now for my kettle and I love it.

I'm new to homebrew talk so first I'd like to say hi to everyone.
I am designing a RIMS system, I have two pumps so I am going to be able to circulate hot water and wort at the same time. can anyone see any problems with using my plated wort chiller as a heater for my mashing?
I have an electric Burco kettle that I use to prepare my mash liquer. and I plan to pump hot water from this to one side of the plated chiller/heater whilst I pump the wort to the other side. This way I hope to eliminate any caramalisation of the wort by having the wort in direct contact with a heater.

That seems like a clever idea. I don't recall anyone discussing using a wort chiller as a RIMS heater before. I don't see why it wouldn't work.

The biggest threat would be a clog from grain bits from your mash. Make sure your false bottom is good, the grain bed is set, and don't stir again. You could recirculate the mash back to itself directly, bypassing the chiller/heater, until it runs clear, then hook it up to the chiller/heater.

I'm not the most experienced brewer, so it'll be good to wait for other opinions. But it sounds like a good plan.

Welcome to the board.

BUMP

I'm designing a system myself and have been debating the same thing. I am probably going to use a single tiered/ 3 vessel RIMS system. Based on reading the posts in this thread, there seems to be the implication that a RIMS system requires you to pump the wort past an electric heating element on its way back to the top of the MLT. But can't you also just have a burner under the MLT, heat the wort from the bottom, and recirculate it up to the top again???? Would this not still be technically a RIMS system?

knightbeer39 said:

BUMP

I'm designing a system myself and have been debating the same thing. I am probably going to use a single tiered/ 3 vessel RIMS system. Based on reading the posts in this thread, there seems to be the implication that a RIMS system requires you to pump the wort past an electric heating element on its way back to the top of the MLT. But can't you also just have a burner under the MLT, heat the wort from the bottom, and recirculate it up to the top again???? Would this not still be technically a RIMS system?

Click to expand...

Technically that would be a DFRMS...

Direct Fired Recirculating Mash System....

But yeah, many people do it, BobbyM???

Does that system work well?? A little harder to hit the temperature target perhaps?

RIMS/HERMS/DICHES/DFRMS who cares. The more I think about it the more they are the same.

My system is a DFRMS/HERMS which I have termed DICHES (Dual Immersion Coil Heat Exchange System).

knightbeer39 said:

Does that system work well?? A little harder to hit the temperature target perhaps?

Click to expand...

More attention for obvious reasons.

#1 typically you are using propane, with no temp controller
#2 typically you are monitoring the MASH temp and you are not really aware of what the temp is in te bottom of the MLT

RIMS and HERMS many times use electric, whicih is easy to wire to a temp controller, so they are hands off.

The Pol said:

More attention for obvious reasons.

#1 typically you are using propane, with no temp controller
#2 typically you are monitoring the MASH temp and you are not really aware of what the temp is in te bottom of the MLT

RIMS and HERMS many times use electric, whicih is easy to wire to a temp controller, so they are hands off.

Click to expand...

I suspect I will go to that eventually, but just to start up the system I will probably go with three burners. My concern was that if the thermometer is near the bottom of the mash tun, then it will be reading higher than the temperature of the mash above it--but in theory that would be at least partially mitigated by the fact you are recirculating.

So many options!!!! :cross:

Gas heat is also easy to wire for control via PID. In fact I would argue it is just as easy aselectric, now that I've figured it out. For $190 you can wire up a PID controlled automatic firing control system for your existing burner.

Standing Pilot light burner with control $192.74
HONEYWELL VR8200A2124 24 Vac Dual Standing Pilot Gas Valve $61.99
1/4" OD Aluminum Pilot Tubing $10.00 Local Hardware 5'
Pilot bracket assembly - Honeywell Q314A6094 B Bracket $16.16
Liquid tight RTD sensor, 2” probe, M16 Thread $29.95
M16 flanged nut $3.69 McMaster-Carr 91005A039
Universal 1/16 DIN PID Temperature Controller $41.95
3-way red LED Selector switch (burner ON/OFF/AUTO) $29.00

I recently added a solenoid gas valve to the MT burner on my direct fired RIMS. I operate the valve with a remote control switch. I plan to add a controller eventually, but I'm not in a hurry to do so as this is working very well as is. Cost was about $40 for the valve. I made a simple pilot light using 1/4" copper tubing and a needle valve for another $6. Should have done this a long time ago.

Cool guys, I just thought it was easier to add an on/off temp control to a heating element than a solenoid valve and pilot to a burner along with the temp controller

The Pol said:

Cool guys, I just thought it was easier to add an on/off temp control to a heating element than a solenoid valve and pilot to a burner along with the temp controller

Click to expand...

You are definitely correct about easier for something like your e-HLT. That setup is sweet! But once you get to 220VAC, SSR, and all the wiring that goes with it, the gas is just as simple (or complicated depending on which side of the table you are on)

Basically, either is great and it just comes down to personal preference.

DFRMS is still RIMS I suppose. It can be automated with gas control (Brutus). I run it full manual and I actually don't recirculate full time because it cause more heat loss than necessary. In the winter, I check my mash temp every 15 minutes and apply about 2 minutes of heat while I recirculate. In the summer, it happens once at the 30 minute mark. The biggest advantage to a DFRMS so far as most people are concerned is the ability to quickly step temps. I'm not 100% sure I agree there because in all case, you don't want to overheat your mash too much especially in the middle steps of a multi step mash.

Note, I think the acronyms given to these mash temp control systems are a little forced. "infusion mash"? Seriously, which mashes are not infused? If all the temp changes are by infusion, there would be no reason to recirculate. It sounds like the intent of the names are to describe how temperatures are changed and/or maintained.

Maybe
SIMS (stirred infusion mash system) THis is water, plus grain, and a mash paddle.
DFSMS (direct fired stirred mash system) water, plus grain, a flame and a mash paddle.
EHXRMS (electric heat exchanger recirculating mash system) Seriously, RIMS is a horrible name for this but I suppose it rings more than EHXRMS.
HERMS is probably the most accurate description of what really happens but there's plenty of variation on how the temp is controlled (e.g. where the temp probe is placed)


I'm getting a little sidetracked but I'm leaning towards RIMS (heat tube) in the future. I like the idea of being able to run a compact loop that doesn't rely on having an HLT or other vessel filled with hot water for the length of the mash. That's not to say I see huge advantages. You'll have to have your HLT filled with hot water eventually for sparging. If you use an electric element in a cooler based HLT like Pol does, heat loss is minimized and it's very efficient.

Great information and food for thought. Thank you all. I'm just in the initial stages of building a system and I know I can upgrade, but want something I'll be happy with for a year or two while I cogitate on upgrades. And of course I want to upgrade to 10+ gallons. I've been an AG brewer for 10 years now and have just always sort of went along with my usual ghetto system in 5 gallon batches.

Is there a build thread anywhere here on how to install a hot water heater element into a keggle or pot for a HLT? What about how to install one in-line (in some sort of pipe housing?) with the circulation system in a RIMS? I would love to browse these to help me make a decision on just how complicated it will be (I'm not a welder, and unfortunately not all that "handy" either...)

Yah.... there is a link for that...

There is a lot of info there on my build. But you can see the step by step building of a "safe" heating element and how to simply and cheaply install it in a leak proof manner.

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/bling-bling-electric-herms-conversion-93217/

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

Gas heat is also easy to wire for control via PID. In fact I would argue it is just as easy aselectric, now that I've figured it out. For $190 you can wire up a PID controlled automatic firing control system for your existing burner.

Standing Pilot light burner with control $192.74
HONEYWELL VR8200A2124 24 Vac Dual Standing Pilot Gas Valve $61.99
1/4" OD Aluminum Pilot Tubing $10.00 Local Hardware 5'
Pilot bracket assembly - Honeywell Q314A6094 B Bracket $16.16
Liquid tight RTD sensor, 2” probe, M16 Thread $29.95
M16 flanged nut $3.69 McMaster-Carr 91005A039
Universal 1/16 DIN PID Temperature Controller $41.95
3-way red LED Selector switch (burner ON/OFF/AUTO) $29.00

Click to expand...

This is intriguing. So you install a pilot light and honeywell valve, and this connects to the PID. Then the RTD sensor is installed in the mashtun and connected to the PID. You set the temperature you want on the PID and as the temp fluctuates in the mash (as detected by the sensor), it automatically opens the valve on the honeywell and the burner fires up. Is that essentially correct? Also, how is the strength of the flame adjusted in this system? thanks!

knightbeer39 said:

This is intriguing. So you install a pilot light and honeywell valve, and this connects to the PID. Then the RTD sensor is installed in the mashtun and connected to the PID. You set the temperature you want on the PID and as the temp fluctuates in the mash (as detected by the sensor), it automatically opens the valve on the honeywell and the burner fires up. Is that essentially correct? Also, how is the strength of the flame adjusted in this system? thanks!

Click to expand...

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/gas-temperature-control-dummies-116632/

Sawdust, once again....you rock!

knightbeer39 said:

This is intriguing. So you install a pilot light and honeywell valve, and this connects to the PID. Then the RTD sensor is installed in the mashtun and connected to the PID. You set the temperature you want on the PID and as the temp fluctuates in the mash (as detected by the sensor), it automatically opens the valve on the honeywell and the burner fires up. Is that essentially correct? Also, how is the strength of the flame adjusted in this system? thanks!

Click to expand...

Manually with a valve.

Bobby_M said:

Manually with a valve.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, sounds good up to that point. If the whole idea is to have this system automated, adjusting flame strength with a manual valve seems kind of counter productive. I guess as long as you keep the flame always on a lower setting it would be fine. I would be concerned about scorching while your away pouring a beer or doing whatever other preps.

Sawdustguy said:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f51/gas-temperature-control-dummies-116632/

Click to expand...

Thanks a bunch!

I am not yet setup with this. But I will have my burners adjusted and never have to change them. Basically, HLT full blast : MLT lowest possible : BK dialed in for a nice rolling boil, likely close to full blast.

I see no need to adjust those settings, I don't with my system now, I just have to bend down and manually fire up the burners and I have no PID control.

Boerderij_Kabouter said:

I am not yet setup with this. But I will have my burners adjusted and never have to change them. Basically, HLT full blast : MLT lowest possible : BK dialed in for a nice rolling boil, likely close to full blast.

I see no need to adjust those settings, I don't with my system now, I just have to bend down and manually fire up the burners and I have no PID control.

Click to expand...

Got ya. that makes sense. sorry if I seem dense; this is my first attempt at putting together a rig and I am not real familiar with gas systems like this.

No no no. It is way better to ask tons of questions and have a good handle on things. Ask away!!!

Thanks! It would be helpful to see an image or brief description of how to hook the honeywell valve up to the existing burner (i.e, what fittings etc.). In my case, I am only planning on being automated for the MLT to do a direct fire RIMS, the HLT I'll control manually. To start with I would just pump strike water from the HLT to the MT, and then be able to set the PID and let it recirculate and heat (as appropriate) the mash while I go do other stuff. I could then come back and heat the sparge water up in the HLT to whatever I need and switch the pump to batch sparge (something I have never done BTW, I've been a fly sparger for 12 years now)