HERMS Coil Bypass and Check Valve

I have seen a few discussions regarding a bypass for a HERMS coil and I am thinking about different ways to accomplish this. I didnt see this covered anywhere in the forums, but there are a ton of threads to maneuver, so forgive me if this has already been suggested.

Why not use a 3 way ball valve (Type L or Type T) on the HERMS coil input with a stainless check valve on the HERMS coil output. This would remove 2 manual valves from your system and turn 3 valve maneuvers into 1. Not to mention the element of human error being reduced by a large percentage.

Without doing much bargain shopping, I can see that this valve system can be realized for about $50. 50 bucks doesnt make it any cheaper than the next idea, but certainly streamlines the process if you are using multiple valves in a HERMS rig.

This setup could easily be accomplished in manual valve systems as well as electronic automated systems.

Things I'm not sure about:

1. Will the check valve impede the flow rate within the system?
2. What is the cracking pressure of the valve AND does your system operating pressure exceed this?

Take a look at the diagram and let me know if you think this is a worthwhile venture.

Thanks!

Why/when would you want to bypass the coil? Wouldn't you just change the output from the pump to the next vessel after you finish circulating the mash?

If you're fully opening or closing the 3 way then there is no need for the check. Heck even with partial diversion if you are trying to get a consistent temp out of the herms there is no need for the check. With grain you are going to gunk it up and have rot in there at some point if any grain remains after cleaning.

What is your reasoning for the check?

WPStrassburg said:

If you're fully opening or closing the 3 way then there is no need for the check. Heck even with partial diversion if you are trying to get a consistent temp out of the herms there is no need for the check. With grain you are going to gunk it up and have rot in there at some point if any grain remains after cleaning.

What is your reasoning for the check?

Click to expand...

I'm not OP, but isn't it to prevent your flow that you don't want going through the coil from doing so? Without it, at the T just in front of the check valve, some wort will head back to the MLT, and some will go back into the coil loop.

But maybe I'm over/underthinking it, feedback is welcome as I found this thread thinking the same thing, only I was going to use a standard valve instead...but the check valve takes one valve maneuver out of the process.

Edit, are you saying maybe the coil will already be full and that will automatically reroute the flow at that T to the mashtun? That makes some sense if I'm reading you right....

thelorax121 said:

Why/when would you want to bypass the coil? Wouldn't you just change the output from the pump to the next vessel after you finish circulating the mash?

Click to expand...

This prevents having to handle the hoses and hot wort. I've had enough spills and minor burns from changing hoses that I'd rather just turn a valve to do the same thing.

I only have a valve at the input of my herms coil(bottom). When I'm done recirculating I shut the put off and close the valve. I move the hoses without spilling.

OP, are you hard piping everything?

I hope this thread stays active. OP I'm wondering if you've taken the leap. I'm about to I think. I'm also thinking of putting a 3 way valve at the intake of the pump so that I can easily switching (without disconnecting hoses) from HLT to MT for the intake and also use the one on the outflow to control whether it flows through the coil or just back into the MT.

For you other guys..if you're still around...any new thought on the checkvalve? If it's unnecessary, I'll omit it completely. I bought the copper for my coil yesterday, hopefully I can get this going this weekend. Would love for my next brew to be HERMS!

jbaysurfer said:

I hope this thread stays active. OP I'm wondering if you've taken the leap. I'm about to I think. I'm also thinking of putting a 3 way valve at the intake of the pump so that I can easily switching (without disconnecting hoses) from HLT to MT for the intake and also use the one on the outflow to control whether it flows through the coil or just back into the MT.

For you other guys..if you're still around...any new thought on the checkvalve? If it's unnecessary, I'll omit it completely. I bought the copper for my coil yesterday, hopefully I can get this going this weekend. Would love for my next brew to be HERMS!

Click to expand...

Yea, I think if you wanted to go that route where you don't have to switch hoses around the 3-way valve could go on the input of pump #1. That way you can drain from both the HLT and MT without having to change any hoses. You can then put a valve on the input(or output) of the herms coil to control the flow going through the coil. You could go another step and put a 3-way valve on the output if the MT. That way you can switch between pump #1 and pimp #2(if you have two pumps).

For me I just kept it simple and put the valve on the herms coil to control the flow through it.


EDIT* Another thing about the herms is if you were planning on using it to chill the wort I would have something else set up. It took me nearly an hour to chill my wort to 85*. I had to replace my water in the HLT twice with ice water. I went out and got a plate chiller and chilling has been shortened to nearly 10 minutes..

tally350z said:

Yea, I think if you wanted to go that route where you don't have to switch hoses around the 3-way valve could go on the input of pump #1. That way you can drain from both the HLT and MT without having to change any hoses. You can then put a valve on the input(or output) of the herms coil to control the flow going through the coil. You could go another step and put a 3-way valve on the output if the MT. That way you can switch between pump #1 and pimp #2(if you have two pumps).

For me I just kept it simple and put the valve on the herms coil to control the flow through it.


EDIT* Another thing about the herms is if you were planning on using it to chill the wort I would have something else set up. It took me nearly an hour to chill my wort to 85*. I had to replace my water in the HLT twice with ice water. I went out and got a plate chiller and chilling has been shortened to nearly 10 minutes..

Click to expand...

I wasn't actually intending to put a valve on the outflow of the herms coil (another edit, I think I'm ok here, I see you actually have the valve on the coil input just like I'm planning on doing)......and was going to control the flow with the 3way valve on the outflow of the pump. From that valve, one branch is going into the coil, and one back to the MLT, do you see any problem with this idea?

Edit: if I use the herms coil as a chiller, it'd be a secondary chiller. I'm pretty stubborn about my chilling setup (2 ICs, 1 50' for inside the kettle, and a prechiller at 25' in a bucket of ice water) because it works so well for me. I could see possibly forgoing the prechiller and just using the 50' IC to bring it down to 90-100f and then using the herms coil in ice water to bring it down to pitch temp maybe...but right now I'm just focusing on controlling mash temps with it.....

The only thing I see with this is when you recirculate through the herms coil and then you begin to sparge, and you don't go through the herms coil you leave that wort in the coil. I'm sure its nothing major but for me I would like to know I am getting all the sugars out of the grain. It might only be 1/2 cup depending on coil setup.

I guess I'm not following. Mash is recirculationg through the HEX. Rest and ramp to mashout is done and now you want to start sparging right? The new input of this pump should be the drain from the HLT so that it goes through the HEX to flush the wort (and clean the HEX) and the output is already heading to the top of the grainbed anyway. IOW, no reason to bypass the hex.

Now, maybe you plan to batch sparge and the actual first step after the rest is to use the pump to drain the tun completely. Even in that case, you would actually be better off diverting the mash runoff via a 3-way valve right after the pump. I don't know, hard lines suck for these reasons. If you really want to control everything with valves, a Tee with two separate valves is cheaper than a 3 way but the three possible states gets confusing.

Bobby_M said:

I guess I'm not following. Mash is recirculationg through the HEX. Rest and ramp to mashout is done and now you want to start sparging right? The new input of this pump should be the drain from the HLT so that it goes through the HEX to flush the wort (and clean the HEX) and the output is already heading to the top of the grainbed anyway. IOW, no reason to bypass the hex.

Now, maybe you plan to batch sparge and the actual first step after the rest is to use the pump to drain the tun completely. Even in that case, you would actually be better off diverting the mash runoff via a 3-way valve right after the pump. I don't know, hard lines suck for these reasons. If you really want to control everything with valves, a Tee with two separate valves is cheaper than a 3 way but the three possible states gets confusing.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, but isn't there a scenario where I'll want to recirc/vorlauf without adding heat? Maybe I haven't contemplated that angle and there's no reason...but I do batch sparge, and I do like to vorlauf/recirc for 10-15 minutes before draining the tun in either step.

Assuming you regulate the mash temp as a function of the HLT water temp, you're never really adding heat other than that required to hold mash temp. I'm sure someone can come up with a reason to bypass, but I don't know what that would be.

I know...this is a very old thread but I am looking into using the 3-way valve idea myself. In the first image, this is a setup commonly used in the HVAC world excluding the check valve. It is not needed. The pressure differentials will prevent back flow.

From my understanding, in a typical HERMS system you are maintaining mash temp by controlling the temp of the water in the HLT. I often hear that doing step mashes is difficult in most HERMS because it can be very slow.

My thought was to keep the water in the HLT at near boiling temperature and do all the mash temperature control with the 3-way valve along with proportional control. This is exactly how some primary/secondary loops work in the lagers HVAC boiler/hot water system applications. If your mash temp starts to drop, you trickle just enough water through the HERMS coil to maintain temperature. If you need to step the mash up, the control valve should open all the way to the coil then start backing itself down as you approach temperature setpoint.

I'm just thinking out loud. Had this in my head for a while and little by little I am building towards it.

In my opinion, it's too much heat shock for the wort that does go through the coil.

Wouldn't you get the same heat shock or even more from a heating element in a RIMS or a direct fire mash tun or steam jacket?

Bobby_M said:

In my opinion, it's too much heat shock for the wort that does go through the coil.

Click to expand...

I think he's right. I have a HERMS system, and a year ago had major problems while brewing a wit. The recirculation was mostly blocked due to the grain bed so I was only recirculating something like a pint a minute.

To make up for it (after having too many beers), I just cranked the HLT temperature.

The beer ended up finishing WAY too high. Like 50% attenuation. After the fact, I decided that I was denaturing the enzymes while they were in the coil. The coil was in hot water (180), and the wort was spending a lot of time in it. By the end of a 60 minute mash, all the wort had circulated through and been heated up too high to convert much of anything.

I can see the point in that situation.

What size tubing are you using for your HERMS, 3/8" or 1/2"?