2 Stage Immersion Chiller with Pump ?

I am considering setting up a 2 Stage Immersion Chiller with a pump,

However i do not know what kind of pump i would need

Currently i am using a single immersion chiller and that seems to be very wasteful of water.

I saw mention somewhere of using a pond pump but i can not find that info now

pictures and or model numbers would be helpful.

Warm ground water right around the corner, and I am thinking about something similar myself.

Look at this one

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002HFTIY/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

The pump I linked is actually an upgrade, and Amazon lists a similar, less powerful pump for about half the price. However, the $15 version seems to have a max height of 4', which might not work on my set up.

Last year, I used a prechiller in line to my immersion chiller. It was a lot of copper, and it did use a ton of water. My plan this year is to use the immersion chiller and ground water to get the wort temp as low as possible (80F?) and then disconnect the hoses, and run a pump like this in a bucket of icewater in a closed loop until I am down to pitching temps (46F for lagers/62F for Ales)

The prechiller -> immersion chiller works, but it spends a lot more water then immersion chiller -> closed loop with pond pump.

Joe

I was looking at this model from Harbour Freight.
http://www.harborfreight.com/1-hp-3000-gph-dirty-water-submersible-pump-with-float-93819.html

These models went on sale last year, but didn't pick one up, but I just got a 30% off HFT coupon...

sketched out a plumbing diagram. trying to figure out what extra connections I may need. looking at 2 3way garden hose connectors with cut off valves to go from an open tap water system, then when temp gets low enough, close system and use the ice water.

Go to wallyworld, look in the fishing section, I got a discounted attwood bilge pump (used to drain water from your boat) for $11, add some wiring and an inline fuse then connect it to your car's battery. Connect the 'in' hose to the pump, drop the pump in a 5gallon bottling bucket with 2 10# bags of ice and a few gallons of water in the bucket. Clamp your chiller's 'out' hose to the inside top of the bucket so that the heated water runs over the ice before dropping to the bottom of the bucket and recirculating into your bilge pump. When the ice melts, open the bottling bucket's spigot to drain off the warm water and change the ice when needed. I can cool 10 gallons of wort (without wasting who knows how much water) in around 20 mins (after using the swirl technique to settle the solids).

I was looking for something that would be an inline pump for a closed loop system.

First Copper coil in in Prechill ice bath > Pump > Second copper coil in wort > back to first coil.

I am thinking that the closed loop will help conserve the ice rather than dumping hot water directly on the ice.

With an immersion chiller the temperature differential is what gives you cooling effectiveness, the closer those temps are the longer it'll take to cool. To maximize this, the IC with tap water first (200* wort vs. 50-60 degree water)...after 5-7 mins or so and the wort temp gets down (140-120? IDK) switch to the ice bath (140-120 vs. 40 degree water). Collect both or either for clean up later or use in the washing machine.

I think i have found what i need.

Wayne PC2 115-Volt 340 GPH Portable Transfer Water Pump, Bronze



http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CPZTEK/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

cheffriz said:

I was looking for something that would be an inline pump for a closed loop system.

First Copper coil in in Prechill ice bath > Pump > Second copper coil in wort > back to first coil.

I am thinking that the closed loop will help conserve the ice rather than dumping hot water directly on the ice.

Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring a lot of valuable advice, as well as the laws of thermodynamics.

The only way the wort will cool down is to exchange heat by warming water, melting ice, etc. There is a fixed amount of heat that has to be removed from the wort. Slowing down that exchange by adding a barrier (ice loop material-copper?) to sinking the heat into the ice bath will not "conserve" ice.

It will only conserve ice in the sense that it will take much longer to drop the temp of the wort, so more heat will be lost to the ambient air through the kettle wall. For wort chilling purposes, an open ice bath will exchange heat much better, giving a colder input into the IC. The loop is still "closed", but the uses an "open" ice bath.

To give an example/hypothetical, one could "conserve" ice in a cooler by putting the ice inside a cooler that itself is inside a cooler with beer/food in it. The inner cooler would indeed conserve the ice, but the beer/food would not be cooled adequately.

The primary goal (for good beer) is to drop the wort temp as rapidly as possible. Using tap water for the initial cooling (to 120F or so), then a recirc'ing ice bath, is a good approach. When the wort is 200-150F, ice or tap water are ~ equally effective (for most systems). As the wort temp drops, the tap water becomes less efficient at removing heat, so more time/volume is needed to remove subsequent heat.

If both conserving water and good beer are equal priorities, a recirc'ing ice bath can be used for the entire process, but will use a large amount of ice.

Also, agitating the wort significantly increases the heat exchanged through the IC.

cwi said:

You seem to be ignoring a lot of valuable advice, as well as the laws of thermodynamics.

The only way the wort will cool down is to exchange heat by warming water, melting ice, etc. There is a fixed amount of heat that has to be removed from the wort. Slowing down that exchange by adding a barrier (ice loop material-copper?) to sinking the heat into the ice bath will not "conserve" ice.

It will only conserve ice in the sense that it will take much longer to drop the temp of the wort, so more heat will be lost to the ambient air through the kettle wall. For wort chilling purposes, an open ice bath will exchange heat much better, giving a colder input into the IC. The loop is still "closed", but the uses an "open" ice bath.

To give an example/hypothetical, one could "conserve" ice in a cooler by putting the ice inside a cooler that itself is inside a cooler with beer/food in it. The inner cooler would indeed conserve the ice, but the beer/food would not be cooled adequately.

The primary goal (for good beer) is to drop the wort temp as rapidly as possible. Using tap water for the initial cooling (to 120F or so), then a recirc'ing ice bath, is a good approach. When the wort is 200-150F, ice or tap water are ~ equally effective (for most systems). As the wort temp drops, the tap water becomes less efficient at removing heat, so more time/volume is needed to remove subsequent heat.

If both conserving water and good beer are equal priorities, a recirc'ing ice bath can be used for the entire process, but will use a large amount of ice.

Also, agitating the wort significantly increases the heat exchanged through the IC.

Click to expand...

Your Advice is well received.

cheffriz said:

I think i have found what i need.

Wayne PC2 115-Volt 340 GPH Portable Transfer Water Pump, Bronze

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CPZTEK/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Click to expand...

I bought one of those to deal with the recent flooding here, and the impeller tore itself apart after about 15 minutes. I took it back the next day. No, I didn't run it dry. Yes, I lubricated it before using it.

Also, I don't think you want that high of a flow rate if your goal is to not waste water.

For my immersion chiller I just used a submersible fountain pump I found on Amazon that cost about $15 as I recall. I put a bunch of water in a bucket, then put the pump in there. The output of the chiller goes to another container to catch the runoff for gardening. Once the wort temp drops down below 100F or so I dump a bunch of ice in the bucket and stir like crazy, and the runoff goes back into the ice mixture to recirculate.

I would scrap the immersion chiller all together. I just finshed my chiller and broke it in this morning and it worked like a charm. I wont save you much water but it's very controlled and sanitary and doesnt cost much.

My system is the opposite of an immersion chiller. I coiled up about 10 feet of copper tube and mounted one end of it in the bucket lid. The other end comes out at side of the bucket toward the bottom.
On the side(top) I mounted a female hose attachment so I can screw the garden hose in. On the bottom i mounted a barbed adapter so I could attach an outlet hose.

When i want to cool the beer i just attach the spigot on my kettle to the bucket and drain it through the bucket which is full of cold water. Its very efficient and sanitary because your beer enters the cooler above the critical contamination temp(180 F.)and empties out as low as you want.

I know this post is a bit complicated, do you understand what i'm explaining?

weirdboy said:

I bought one of those to deal with the recent flooding here, and the impeller tore itself apart after about 15 minutes. I took it back the next day. No, I didn't run it dry. Yes, I lubricated it before using it.

Also, I don't think you want that high of a flow rate if your goal is to not waste water.

For my immersion chiller I just used a submersible fountain pump I found on Amazon that cost about $15 as I recall. I put a bunch of water in a bucket, then put the pump in there. The output of the chiller goes to another container to catch the runoff for gardening. Once the wort temp drops down below 100F or so I dump a bunch of ice in the bucket and stir like crazy, and the runoff goes back into the ice mixture to recirculate.

Click to expand...

Happen to have a link?

jfowler1 said:

Warm ground water right around the corner, and I am thinking about something similar myself.

Look at this one

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002HFTIY/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

The pump I linked is actually an upgrade, and Amazon lists a similar, less powerful pump for about half the price. However, the $15 version seems to have a max height of 4', which might not work on my set up.

Last year, I used a prechiller in line to my immersion chiller. It was a lot of copper, and it did use a ton of water. My plan this year is to use the immersion chiller and ground water to get the wort temp as low as possible (80F?) and then disconnect the hoses, and run a pump like this in a bucket of icewater in a closed loop until I am down to pitching temps (46F for lagers/62F for Ales)

The prechiller -> immersion chiller works, but it spends a lot more water then immersion chiller -> closed loop with pond pump.

Joe

Click to expand...

This looks like a good option.


They even advertise it as such



I can not tell from the images, Do you know if any modifications need to be made to it or the hosing on the chiller for the two to integrate properly, My Immersion chiller has a female garden hose attachment.

rambler said:

I would scrap the immersion chiller all together. I just finshed my chiller and broke it in this morning and it worked like a charm. I wont save you much water but it's very controlled and sanitary and doesnt cost much.

My system is the opposite of an immersion chiller. I coiled up about 10 feet of copper tube and mounted one end of it in the bucket lid. The other end comes out at side of the bucket toward the bottom.
On the side(top) I mounted a female hose attachment so I can screw the garden hose in. On the bottom i mounted a barbed adapter so I could attach an outlet hose.

When i want to cool the beer i just attach the spigot on my kettle to the bucket and drain it through the bucket which is full of cold water. Its very efficient and sanitary because your beer enters the cooler above the critical contamination temp(180 F.)and empties out as low as you want.

I know this post is a bit complicated, do you understand what i'm explaining?

Click to expand...

This invention is just a sub-optimal counter-flow chiller of sorts. It combines the worst traits of both an IC and CFC- the inefficiency of an IC and the inherent sanitation issues of a CFC. I don't think the logic of beer entering at 180F and exiting at "whatever temp" passes the "sanitary" test.

Homebrewing has many gadget makers who have had many years to try out virtually every invention. A little research will save you time "re-inventing" new ones.

So what im hearing is that you dont like the idea? Mine works great and hasn't given me any problems. I'm quite aware that these have been around for some time and also aware of sanitation issues. I have found that if rinsed properly and sanitized before hand just like any other chiller I have used, this one performs FAR better than a 1 or 2-stage immersion chiller and is far more simple than a pump system.

As to the sanitary "test" I havent got the slightest idea what your talking about. I only meant that the beer is most susceptible to contamination between 180 and 90 degrees and the more you can control the enviroment your beer is in during that period the better off you are.

Third, mine uses less copper and doesn't leave the beer exposed while cooling.

What do you use?

This is the pump i used with my immersion chiller http://www.harborfreight.com/190-gph-mini-submersible-pump-41287.html
I'm getting ready to buy another 25 ft of copper and run them together by splitting the line with a t.

sagnew440 said:

I'm getting ready to buy another 25 ft of copper and run them together by splitting the line with a t.

Click to expand...

If i understand this correctly you are going to get a second Immersion Chiller and have one seated inside the other. and have the pump running into both at the same time?

rambler said:

So what im hearing is that you dont like the idea? Mine works great and hasn't given me any problems. I'm quite aware that these have been around for some time and also aware of sanitation issues. I have found that if rinsed properly and sanitized before hand just like any other chiller I have used, this one performs FAR better than a 1 or 2-stage immersion chiller and is far more simple than a pump system.

As to the sanitary "test" I havent got the slightest idea what your talking about. I only meant that the beer is most susceptible to contamination between 180 and 90 degrees and the more you can control the enviroment your beer is in during that period the better off you are.

Third, mine uses less copper and doesn't leave the beer exposed while cooling.

What do you use?

Click to expand...

rambler said:

I would scrap the immersion chiller all together. I just finshed my chiller and broke it in this morning and it worked like a charm. I wont save you much water but it's very controlled and sanitary and doesnt cost much.

Click to expand...

The only idea I didn't like was the suggestion to "scrap" the IC, and switch to whatever you call your hybrid chiller based on it being "sanitary" and "controlled", when the CFC style chiller's main drawbacks are the difficulties in cleaning/sanitizing them and controlling outflow temps. You acknowledge sanitation issues in your latest response, but do not really specify which ones or how you "properly" sanitize it.

The sanitary test I referred to your hybrid chiller not passing was a hypothetical/fantastical test, and was purposely as vague as your claim that your chiller was "sanitary", contrary to that style of chiller.

There are many trade offs to consider when choosing a chiller, and it is confusing enough without vague or misleading information. I was trying to make sure that the traits of all styles of chillers, yours and others, were presented accurately.

Your style of chiller is indeed simpler than an ice bath IC in that it does not require a pump. It is somewhat more sanitary than an IC in that it is possible to have sterile hot wort chilled and routed to the fermenter in a closed environment. It does, however, have sanitation/cleaning issues that an IC doesn't have, and those are how to clean the insides and fittings, and sanitize the hoses if you don't use a pump.

An IC is sanitized by placing it in the boil for a few minutes. If using a pump, the transfer hose can be recirc'c with boiling wort to take care of the transfer sanitation issues. While chilling with an IC, there is exposure in the kettle. The only feasible option is to put a notched lid on while chilling.

Temperature control is much easier with an IC- you watch the temp drop and stop when you want. A true CFC requires only a bit more work at first to tune it to the desired output temp. Your "counter flow" hybrid is not even "counter flow" since the cold input is in the same immediate area as the hot input, and unless much more chill water volume is used versus a true CFC, it will not maintain consistent output temps due to heating effects during chilling. (Conserving was one of the main issues the OP had with his chiller.) If one were to fill your hybrid chiller with ice water, it would require almost constant adjustment to maintain a stable output temp since the temp of the chill water will increase as the chilling proceeds, causing output temp variation and corresponding control input to correct it.

As for being able to get the wort to "whatever temp you want", for any chiller that is highly dependent on time, temp of chill water, amount of chill water, etc. In places with 70F+ tap water, your "whatever temp" is difficult to get to if it is below 80F. See above issues using ice in your hybrid chiller for why it would have issues if ice were needed due to hot tap water.

Your chiller may indeed use less copper and cost less, but that did not appear to be one of the OP's issues as he was going to buy a pump and build a closed 2 stage IC with dual coils. (Which I informed him about the issues involved, just like you referenced regarding 2 stage IC in your experience).

Besides price, ease of temp control, complexity, effect on hops, ease of adjusting for chill time, etc., there are other factors that can be considered when choosing a chiller style- late hopping with an IC, or hop-back with a cfc/plate; cold break removal, or not; whirlpooling, or not; a small volume of wort immediately chilling while remainder remains near boiling (DMS issues?), or entire batch chilling more slowly, but with a consistent boil time for batch.

A bit of reading/analysis on the various chiller styles and their advantages/drawbacks is all that is needed to pick one, or maybe more than one for brew type specific chillers.

cheffriz said:

If i understand this correctly you are going to get a second Immersion Chiller and have one seated inside the other. and have the pump running into both at the same time?

Click to expand...

That is correct.

I suppose i should have asked if you even have the capability to drain your kettle through the cooler i suggested. I guess if you don't, the whole idea would be moot.

As to the cooler that i use, i could not be happier with it. CWI seems to have a pretty strong oppinion on the matter but i think if he knew a bit more about the way it's set up he may reconsider.

Its true that counterflow chillers (CFC) are a bit notoriuos for sanitation issues. I took this into consideration when i built mine. With the traditional CFC that has 25 or so feet of copper inside a larger diameter hose you have to be very careful not to have any kinks or sharp turns in the copper b/c these trap material and can spoil beer easily. When i built mine decided that the less copper i used it would give me a shorter amount of tube to collect unwanted material. Thats why i used only 10 feet of tube. It was also a lot cheeper that 50 feet obviously. The only problem is that you dont have as much distance for the heat exchanging to occur in.

I remedied ths by giving the coil as large a diameter as i could thus allowing the most amount of water between the coils to maximize the surface area exposure. There is a quite a bit of room inside the bucket. I also put a valve on the out hose to control how much water is in the bucket at all times. By controling the amount of water in the bucket you can also influence the temperature of the cooled wort greatly. That is only one of the ways that i can control the output temperature.

The majority of the temperature control is by means of the spigot on my keg. By regulating how fast he wort comes out i can keep it in the coil longer or shorter if i want to. I also have a shutoff valve where the in hose attaches to the bucket. This allows me to achieve peak efficiency by changing out the warmed water quickly. What i usually do is crack open both the inlet valve and the outlet valve and establish a steady exchange of cool water to keep everything cooling quickly.

I understand from your post though that you are looking to conserve water, so i dont know if this woild be a good option for you. Saving water isn't as high on my priorities as it may be with you. If you want to conserve water with my setup you only have to shut both valves and let the water get warm, and after it stops cooling effectively you can change the water by opening the valves.

My sanitizing regimen is actually fairly simle and effective. When i heat up my strike water i add enough extra water to sanitize my fermentor also. When i am done sparging i just add some Star-San to the remaining water and slowly drain it through the cooler into the fermentor. Often times i will allow it to sit in the cooler for a few minutes just in case and then drain it right before i use it. This assures that if my cooler is sanitzed it stays that way right up to the wort exhange process.

I hope this makes it all understandable but like i said if you dont have a drain on your kettle none of it matters. If you do go with the 2 stage IC than my only advice is to keep it simple. Remeber the fewer connections you have, the better. Good luck...

rambler said:

As to the cooler that i use, i could not be happier with it. CWI seems to have a pretty strong oppinion on the matter but i think if he knew a bit more about the way it's set up he may reconsider.

Click to expand...

The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like a proud parent talking about what a perfect boy little Billy Jr is, while behind them he is using a nail to draw on someone's car. I was trying not to state my opinion, but rather facts related to chiller design.

rambler said:

This allows me to achieve peak efficiency by changing out the warmed water quickly. What i usually do is crack open both the inlet valve and the outlet valve and establish a steady exchange of cool water to keep everything cooling quickly.

Click to expand...

Efficiency is a vague term- water use/temp drop, temp drop/time, etc.? With chillers, the main fixed variables we deal with are temp differential and flow rates. Those dictate most other variables. If other variables are fixed as well (tube length/dia), that can be factored in to the design.

Rambler, if you really want "peak efficiency" of both water use, temp differential, and chilling potential per minute, you could reverse your chill water connections so that the new chill water is introduced at the bucket bottom (where the chilled wort exits), and exits from the top (where the hot wort enters). That way the temp differential is greatest where it is most beneficial- the last portion of the wort's path through the chiller. As is stands, your design is not optimized. Since you don't care about water use, the only reason to change it would be to increase wort flow to reduce your total chill time.

Generally people want to chill their whole batch as quickly as possible. With a CFC, this means maxing out the chill water flow, and then restricting the wort flow until the exit temp is at target/pitching temp. If available chill water is cold enough to allow full wort flow, water can be conserved by restricting the chill water flow, or wort flow can be increased by using larger tubing to reduce chill time.

rambler said:

If you want to conserve water with my setup you only have to shut both valves and let the water get warm, and after it stops cooling effectively you can change the water by opening the valves.

Click to expand...

Really? Proud parent syndrome again, I guess. This approach would be a PITA to hit a target pitching temp. If you tune your in/out flow (wort and water) to achieve your preferred balance between water use and total chill time, there is no reason to let water "warm up", then replace, then "warm up", then "lather, rinse, repeat".

rambler said:

If you do go with the 2 stage IC than my only advice is to keep it simple. Remeber the fewer connections you have, the better. Good luck...

Click to expand...

If he uses an IC (1 or 2 stage), his wort path can have 1 less connection than yours. Is that the kind of connection you are talking about? BTW, I think the OP has already ditched the 2 stage, and is going with a recirc'd open ice bath.

Rambler, you seem to have some strong opinions about the design/effectiveness of your chiller. Why not start a thread in the equipment section about your new chiller design, and let the inventor types evaluate it?

Wow, thanks for the tip on inverting the flow, that's a great idea. And I think I will post a thread and throw it out there. I am always out to learn a better way to do it so I appreciate your knowledge.

Its your attitude that could use some work...Good Luck

rambler said:

Wow, thanks for the tip on inverting the flow, that's a great idea. And I think I will post a thread and throw it out there. I am always out to learn a better way to do it so I appreciate your knowledge.

Its your attitude that could use some work...Good Luck

Click to expand...

Peace, love, and frisbees, I guess. I would only say that my attitude is a direct result of your attitude. The OP came here wanting to conserve water while chilling, and you foisted upon him an ill-conceived chiller design that uses even more water, all the while touting dubious benefits and work-arounds that complicate matters further. I only tried to keep the facts in line with the laws of physics, while you continued to extol the virtues of your new chiller, which was an inappropriate design for the OP.

You like your chiller, and it works great for you. Selling it like snake oil to others is part of your attitude that could use some work.

Hisssss!

Waaaaahhhh!