March 815-PL vs. Chugger (SS Inline) real world flow test

CornyKegs 728
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.
J

jbsengineer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
342
Reaction score
8
Location
Syracuse
I recently built an eBrewery. I followed most of Kal's plans but what I didn't follow was the pumps. I went with the latest edition of the Chugger Stainless Steel inline pumps. After two batches I found my flow rate in my mash/tun a bit subpar. Some research led me to believe that the flow should be a bit stronger and my ramp up times for mash-in and mash-out should be better. Also, I found that between the two Chugger pumps (Water & Wort) my Wort pump was anywhere from 5-10% slower.

So I ordered an 815-PL for some comparison testing. My testing showed the 815-PL beat the Chugger each time. Not by a great margin but enough to make a difference in my setup.

According to the Chugger website they are rated at 7GPM with an 18 feet maximum head. According to the March website, the 815-PL is also rated at 7GPM with a 18 feet maximum head.

I performed these tests against my "better" Chugger pump. (Again is some previous testing I found one pump to outperform the other by 5%-10% depending on the test)

I would give the results a +/- 2 seconds for accuracy. I repeated a few of them to get my testing down.

No Coil Test Details:

1) Filled HLT with water
2) Pumped 3.5 gallons into Mash/Tun
3) Connected 2x4' hoses
4) One connected from the HLT into the pump inlet
5) The outlet connected directly to the connection on the top of the Mash/Tun (The inlet on the mash/tun is connected to a 5' long piece of hose. I placed the outlet of the host on the bottle of the kettle (under 3.5Gallons of water). I did in order to add some resistence in the pumping. During my mashing process the host is under 1 inch or so of wort.
6) Prime pump and verify no air in order for a consistent test
7) Close pump valve and turn pump on
8) Open valve and start timer
9) Let the pump move 5 gallons of water into the Mash/Tun and stop timer.
10) Reset

The results between the two pumps. The test consisted of pumping 5 gallons of water directly without the 50' coil inline:

March 815-PL: 1min:17sec
Chugger: 1min:30sec


With Coil Test Details:

1) Filled HLT with water
2) Pumped 3.5 gallons into Mash/Tun
3) Connected 3x4' hoses
4) One connected from the HLT into the pump inlet
5) The outlet connected to the bottom inlet of the HERMs coil
6) The outlet of the HERMs coil is connected to the inlet of the Mash/Tun
7) Prime pump and verify no air in order for a consistent test
8) Close pump valve and turn pump on
9) Open valve and start timer
10) Let the pump move 5 gallons of water into the Mash/Tun and stop timer.
11) Reset

The results between the two pumps. The test consisted of pumping 5 gallons of water with a 50' HERMs coil inline:

March 815-PL: 2min:48sec
Chugger: 3min:10sec


In summary:

The Chugger performed at 85.5% of the speed of the March in the no coil test and 88.4% with the coil. Almost linear. The Chugger pumps ~.5 gallon less per 5 gallons. Again, as this was tested with my better performing Chugger pump, I'm a little curious to what these would numbers would look like against the other one. In my original testing I found a 5%-10% difference in performance.

I'm a bit dissapointed at the performance with the Chugger. I plan to keep the March and use the Chugger as a spare.

As an extra tidbit I also found the March to be better with priming and avoiding cavitating, hands down. It was also quieter.
 
Have you looked at the actual head curves of the pumps. That is going to determine your actual flow rate. Just because the pump is rated at 7 gpm (max flow) and 18 ft TDH (max head) (Not an operating point), doesn't mean that is what your system is running at.

Chugger
http://chuggerpumps.com/pdf/chugger-curves.pdf

March
http://www.marchpump.com/site/files/966/112279/382929/524649/Performance_Curve.pdf

Edit: Looking at the pump curves, you are pumping around 3.33 gpm with the chugger and 3.9 gpm with the march Pump. That falls right in line with the pump curves with everything else being held the same.
 
jbsengineer said:
As an extra tidbit I also found the March to be better with priming and avoiding cavitating, hands down.
Click to expand...
That's interesting since the March 815-PL is known to have priming issues. That's why I went with the stainless head version of the 815-PL-C myself.

The difference is the 3/4" center inlet instead of 1/2" bottom inlet. It makes all the difference in the world. Had someone recently switch their old 814-PLs out to these center inlet pumps after having nothing but problems and all their priming problems went away. They didn't believe me that they'd make a big difference but it did.

The 815-PL-C 3/4" center inlet are also rated at 8 GPM instead of 7 GPM like the "regular" 814-PL 1/2" bottom inlet. How that resolves to real world numbers would be interesting to test ...

Kal
 
schmoe said:
Have you looked at the actual head curves of the pumps. That is going to determine your actual flow rate. Just because the pump is rated at 7 gpm (max flow) and 18 ft TDH (max head) (Not an operating point), doesn't mean that is what your system is running at.

Chugger
http://chuggerpumps.com/pdf/chugger-curves.pdf

March
http://www.marchpump.com/site/files/966/112279/382929/524649/Performance_Curve.pdf

Edit: Looking at the pump curves, you are pumping around 3.33 gpm with the chugger and 3.9 gpm with the march Pump. That falls right in line with the pump curves with everything else being held the same.
Click to expand...

I had thought I compared the curves and they were exact (apparently not). How did you calculate 3.3 and 3.9gpm against the curve graphs?
 
kal said:
That's interesting since the March 815-PL is known to have priming issues. That's why I went with the stainless head version of the 815-PL-C myself.

The difference is the 3/4" center inlet instead of 1/2" bottom inlet. It makes all the difference in the world. Had someone recently switch their old 814-PLs out to these center inlet pumps after having nothing but problems and all their priming problems went away. They didn't believe me that they'd make a big difference but it did.

The 815-PL-C 3/4" center inlet are also rated at 8 GPM instead of 7 GPM like the "regular" 814-PL 1/2" bottom inlet. How that resolves to real world numbers would be interesting to test ...

Kal
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the 809 model? The 815 model apparently helps with priming issues while increasing the base flow rate.

See:

http://morebeer.com/view_product/11622/103556/March_High_Temperature_Brewing_Pump_-_High_Flow
 
schmoe said:
5 gallons over 1 minute 17 seconds (5/1.28 minutes = 3.9 gpm) and 1 minute 30 seconds (5/1.5 = 3.3 gpm).
Click to expand...

I meant to ask, how did the curves confirm my results? I see the different in maximum pump head but am unsure how to calculate that down to flow rate over a distance (if even possible).
 
look at the pump curves for 14ft of head (y axis)

chuggers is about 3.33 gpm, march is about 4 (60hz). which confirms the data.
 
jbsengineer said:
I meant to ask, how did the curves confirm my results? I see the different in maximum pump head but am unsure how to calculate that down to flow rate over a distance (if even possible).
Click to expand...

The general curves for headloss are going to follow a general system curve (see picture below). So based on how the two pump curves are stacked on eachother, you would expect a slightly higher flow. You could back calculate your friction factors to be able to develop your own system curve.

I might have to build the model I use here at work to my brewing system to compare.

sect_a9_01.gif


And I attached the two pump curves over top of each other with a "theoretical" system curve. It may be flatter or steeper, but you can back calculate all the fun friction factors based on fittings, tubing length, difference in water levels, etc.

Pump Curves.jpg
 
Interesting. Could I apply the 14 feet head to other pump curves and have an estimate of how much more or less they could pump per minute?
 
jbsengineer said:
Interesting. Could I apply the 14 feet head to other pump curves and have an estimate of how much more or less they could pump per minute?
Click to expand...

Roughly. The problem is that any additional flow will increase your head and a lower flow will decrease your head along a system curve. But in this case it would be fairly close.
 
If you have the inclination, I would be interested in seeing your tests using the 815 impeller inside the Chugger head. I've looked at these myself (but not done tests) and the impeller on the (new version) Chugger is larger than the 809 ones, but still not as large as the 815 ones. I think Mike from Chugger had stated somewhere that they didn't want to go quite as large as the 815 because it can get stuck from pieces of grain.
 
Nice data. I would be curious to see your suction conditions. What connectors and tubing your are using. This data contradicts our factory test data. The Chugger is designed differently and the suction conditions of your rig will effect the pump performance. Are the impeller sizes identical? We did reduce our impeller size while opening up the inlet size of our pump. We have a new design with another larger impeller coming out soon. I could send you an impeller to test
 
chuggerpumps said:
Nice data. I would be curious to see your suction conditions. What connectors and tubing your are using. This data contradicts our factory test data. The Chugger is designed differently and the suction conditions of your rig will effect the pump performance. Are the impeller sizes identical? We did reduce our impeller size while opening up the inlet size of our pump. We have a new design with another larger impeller coming out soon. I could send you an impeller to test
Click to expand...

I am sucking out of a stock Blichmann 20 Gallon boil kettle. Here is a pic of the dip tube:

7181151881_dae57f21fe_o_d.jpg


Here is a pic of the setup:

7126051591_579fec579e_b_d.jpg


I would be willing to test the larger impeller and report back.
 
jbsengineer said:
Here is a pic of the setup:
Click to expand...

How do you expect to get valid results from a POS system like that... ?

Clearly, i'm joking. Nice set up man! Ok, back to the show....
 
I am surprised this hasn't sparked a 'tech vs. engineer' flame war yet, what with all the charts, graphs, curve intersections, and theoretical calculations. If you put the slide-rule down for a minute, and look at your system's flow path, you should be able increase your flow by more than the Chugger vs. March pump difference by getting rid of the 90's coming off the pumps. Had you ordered the center inlet models, you would have even an better flow rate. Those non-center inlet pumps are bad enough without adding another 90 to the inlet, and then adding a 90 to the outlet to boot.

RE: inline pumps- I don't know why the inline designs have such a cult following. Even to the point that when someone posts a parts list including a pump with 'C' appended to the pump number, someone invariably warns them they are deviating from the collective, and are ordering the wrong pump. From what I remember, the inline design was only made so that it retro-fit more easily into a straight run of hot water pipe.

While the March may (will probably) still maintain its whopping 10% performance advantage over the Chugger with the flow path improved, if what you want is more flow from a given pump, this will help. Yes, your current hose routing and pump position may have to change, but that is the tradeoff between engineering and art.

I can't tell from the pic what your tube adapters are, but those are also a common source of restriction. Yours look like some kind of full flow quick connect, so I can't say for sure, but the cam lock fittings have some notorious offenders. Solutions involve going up one size and stretching the tube over the fitting, or using NPT and NPT-Barb adapters to remove the restriction caused by the correct (numbers wise) fitting. Keeping the hoses as short as possible while still having gradual curves also helps.

You can also buy a bigger pump, but oversizing depends on your beliefs regarding centrifugal pumps and product shear.
 
i didn't even realize he was asking for help. i just thought he was doing an experiment.

chugger, i don't understand how his test contradicts your factory test, as it seems to ride your pump curve pretty accurately.
 
cwi said:
I am surprised this hasn't sparked a 'tech vs. engineer' flame war yet, what with all the charts, graphs, curve intersections, and theoretical calculations. If you put the slide-rule down for a minute, and look at your system's flow path, you should be able increase your flow by more than the Chugger vs. March pump difference by getting rid of the 90's coming off the pumps. Had you ordered the center inlet models, you would have even an better flow rate. Those non-center inlet pumps are bad enough without adding another 90 to the inlet, and then adding a 90 to the outlet to boot.
Click to expand...

In my other tests I did remove one of the 90 degrees as the pump inlet and it made no difference so I didn't bother with the other. I also removed the dip tube without a change.

RE: inline pumps- I don't know why the inline designs have such a cult following. Even to the point that when someone posts a parts list including a pump with 'C' appended to the pump number, someone invariably warns them they are deviating from the collective, and are ordering the wrong pump. From what I remember, the inline design was only made so that it retro-fit more easily into a straight run of hot water pipe.
Click to expand...

This wasn't why I bought an inline. I figured I would give the Chugger SS head pump a try.

While the March may (will probably) still maintain its whopping 10% performance advantage over the Chugger with the flow path improved, if what you want is more flow from a given pump, this will help. Yes, your current hose routing and pump position may have to change, but that is the tradeoff between engineering and art.
Click to expand...

It was more like 12-15% against the better of my two Chugger pumps. I tested removing some of the 90's and shorting the hoses (1' footer from the coil to the MT inlet) with neglible differences in performance.

I can't tell from the pic what your tube adapters are, but those are also a common source of restriction. Yours look like some kind of full flow quick connect, so I can't say for sure, but the cam lock fittings have some notorious offenders. Solutions involve going up one size and stretching the tube over the fitting, or using NPT and NPT-Barb adapters to remove the restriction caused by the correct (numbers wise) fitting. Keeping the hoses as short as possible while still having gradual curves also helps.
Click to expand...

They are quick connects.

You can also buy a bigger pump, but oversizing depends on your beliefs regarding centrifugal pumps and product shear.
Click to expand...

Planning on it.
 
Bobby_M said:
I think it really comes down to whether you think it's worth $50 to flow 5 gallons 13 seconds faster.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

However, the cost difference is no longer great. I got a March 815 for $149. The Chugger cost me $139. However, the Chugger does have that shiny SS head, :).
 
jbsengineer said:
In my other tests I did remove one of the 90 degrees as the pump inlet and it made no difference so I didn't bother with the other. I also removed the dip tube without a change.
Click to expand...

It couldn't have made no difference. (Just giving you some grief since you commented on me rounding down 12% to 10%.) Personally, I have only anecdotal proof, but there have been more than a few tests showing that removing the 90s does increase flow, though I am not sure how competent the testers were. Removing the 90s will make less of an impact if there are other restriction downline (or upline), which may be a indication.
jbsengineer said:
This wasn't why I bought an inline. I figured I would give the Chugger SS head pump a try.
Click to expand...
Could you explain why (if the center inlet Chugger was available) you bought an inline, then put a 90 on the inlet?
The March center inlet obviously was available, and it has a 15% flow increase right out of the box, plus better priming.

jbsengineer said:
It was more like 12-15% against the better of my two Chugger pumps. I tested removing some of the 90's and shorting the hoses (1' footer from the coil to the MT inlet) with neglible differences in performance.
Click to expand...
As stated above, there may be a downline (or upline) restriction preventing those flow path improvements from having any significant benefit. I have personally seen the improvement from doing this, but it was after enlarging the connectors to ones close to the hose ID. I didn't do any measurements, but the difference was visually apparent and priming improved. I don't know whether you would have considered it negligible, but considering you think a 12-15% from buying an extra pump was worth it, I would think even a small increase that doesn't cost anything would be as well.

jbsengineer said:
They are quick connects.
Click to expand...
Is your ID throughout your flow path the same, or larger, than the hose ID?

jbsengineer said:
Planning on it.
Click to expand...
There is something to be said for a properly sized pump. If a larger pump ends up requiring excessive throttling for a particular process (like HERMS or lautering), PWM controllers can be used on most of the pump motors in homebrew sized pumps. Walter at March has even said so for the 809 motors. As long as the motor design is similar (PSC, shaded pole), the same is true for larger models. There is a lower speed limit for sure, but I think the performance vs. speed curve for centrifugal pumps is fairly steep for the top 20% rpms, so the speed reduction required shouldn't be an issue.
 
cwi said:
It couldn't have made no difference. (Just giving you some grief since you commented on me rounding down 12% to 10%.) Personally, I have only anecdotal proof, but there have been more than a few tests showing that removing the 90s does increase flow, though I am not sure how competent the testers were. Removing the 90s will make less of an impact if there are other restriction downline (or upline), which may be a indication.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly it was a difference of under 2 seconds. Since I gave my accuracy a +/- 2 seconds I figured it a wash. Now, as a reminder I only did 1 side. Maybe the other side makes all the difference.

Could you explain why (if the center inlet Chugger was available) you bought an inline, then put a 90 on the inlet?
The March center inlet obviously was available, and it has a 15% flow increase right out of the box, plus better priming.
Click to expand...

The center inlet chugger was not available at the time I ordered. It was available shortly after. Honestly, it was my fault anyway. If I new the center inlet made that big of difference in priming, cavitation, and performance I would have got it.

As stated above, there may be a downline (or upline) restriction preventing those flow path improvements from having any significant benefit. I have personally seen the improvement from doing this, but it was after enlarging the connectors to ones close to the hose ID. I didn't do any measurements, but the difference was visually apparent and priming improved. I don't know whether you would have considered it negligible, but considering you think a 12-15% from buying an extra pump was worth it, I would think even a small increase that doesn't cost anything would be as well.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I just don't know where to look exactly. I'm not trying to change my setup. Just find a pump that works with it.


Is your ID throughout your flow path the same, or larger, than the hose ID?
Click to expand...

Well, the quick disconnects all have the standard 1/2" barb. The hose has an ID of 1/2".


There is something to be said for a properly sized pump. If a larger pump ends up requiring excessive throttling for a particular process (like HERMS or lautering), PWM controllers can be used on most of the pump motors in homebrew sized pumps. Walter at March has even said so for the 809 motors. As long as the motor design is similar (PSC, shaded pole), the same is true for larger models. There is a lower speed limit for sure, but I think the performance vs. speed curve for centrifugal pumps is fairly steep for the top 20% rpms, so the speed reduction required shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Interesting. But no issue with just throttling with a valve correct?

I understand that there might be obstructions, 90 degree angles, long tubing, herms coil, etc, etc. The point of my thread post was to show the difference in a real world setup. A setup which has been replicated dozens if not hundreds of times in one way or another. It shows the difference in pure performance with the same obstructions between each pump. I was and am unbiased. Chugger or March, it doesn't matter to me. Sure 12-15% isn't much, but it is a difference.

I also agree that 12-15% isn't worth purchasing another pump or upgrading for that matter. But I do want more flow. So I am testing an 815-PL-C. I want to see the Center inlet in action, :).
 
March 815-PL-C results:

With Coil: 1min:54secs
Without Coil: :54secs

March rates this pump at 8GPM.

The center inlet has made me a believer. Very easy to get it primed and it gave an improvement of 32% in flow performance over the 815-PL through the HERMs coil.
 
jbsengineer said:
Well, the quick disconnects all have the standard 1/2" barb. The hose has an ID of 1/2".
Click to expand...

There have been some threads on various types of connectors, and barb wall thickness. The camlocks have one that is ridiculous. Even with standard 1/2" barbs, the OD of the barb is usually 1/2". The ID varies based on manuf., but is always smaller than 1/2". 5/8" barb to NPT connectors are available, though difficult to find, and have an ID closer to 1/2". The 3/4" barbs are more common, but are scary to put 1/2" silicone tubing on. These small centrifugal pumps seem to be affected by even small restrictions to the flow path.

jbsengineer said:
Interesting. But no issue with just throttling with a valve correct?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, it depends on your personal beliefs on product shear. Running a pump with the output restricted is like putting your wort in a 3500rpm blender. Running an oversized pump at a reduced speed can also increase shear over a properly sized pump, since these pumps have an optimum speed, but is probably better than severely restricting output. When two different flow rates are needed with centrifugal pump there isn't much choice to either restrict, decrease speed, or buy 2 correctly sized pumps.

jbsengineer said:
I understand that there might be obstructions, 90 degree angles, long tubing, herms coil, etc, etc. The point of my thread post was to show the difference in a real world setup. A setup which has been replicated dozens if not hundreds of times in one way or another. It shows the difference in pure performance with the same obstructions between each pump. I was and am unbiased. Chugger or March, it doesn't matter to me. Sure 12-15% isn't much, but it is a difference.

I also agree that 12-15% isn't worth purchasing another pump or upgrading for that matter. But I do want more flow. So I am testing an 815-PL-C. I want to see the Center inlet in action, :).
Click to expand...
I am not on either team. I just find the popularity of the inline models confusing. Your post complaining about flow when you had the inline model plus 90s on both outputs compounded my confusion.

I see you have have been effectively de-programmed after testing a center inlet model. I wish all the LHBS would stop selling the inlines, or at least offer the center inlet (which most don't).
 
jbsengineer said:
March 815-PL-C results:

With Coil: 1min:54secs
Without Coil: :54secs

March rates this pump at 8GPM.

The center inlet has made me a believer. Very easy to get it primed and it gave an improvement of 32% in flow performance over the 815-PL through the HERMs coil.
Click to expand...
Upping the inlet tubing to 3/4" could only improve throughput even more, since the center inlets have a larger inlet. I passed up a great deal on some reinforced 3/4" silicone that I am kicking myself about now.

Just remember to keep the output horizontal and on top. They prime better that way, since the air collects right at the output . Probably not as important with the center inlet, but makes a huge difference with the inlines.
 
Admittedly, I'm dumb. Reading through this thread has me confused.
So which pump will get me through a brew day a couple of minutes quicker? I really have no time to spare, so two or three minutes really means the world to me. I'd hate to have my brew day last an extra 5 minutes and miss my kids' first bike ride without training wheels. or possibly NOT make it to the bowl in time to void my bowels of last night's meatloaf. Someone help me.... I don't have 3 minutes to spare. I hate brewing and want it to be over as soon as possible.....aaarrrrggghhhhh.
 
mikeysab said:
Admittedly, I'm dumb. Reading through this thread has me confused.
So which pump will get me through a brew day a couple of minutes quicker? I really have no time to spare, so two or three minutes really means the world to me. I'd hate to have my brew day last an extra 5 minutes and miss my kids' first bike ride without training wheels. or possibly NOT make it to the bowl in time to void my bowels of last night's meatloaf. Someone help me.... I don't have 3 minutes to spare. I hate brewing and want it to be over as soon as possible.....aaarrrrggghhhhh.
Click to expand...

You have missed the point, completely. :drunk:
 
mikeysab said:
Admittedly, I'm dumb. Reading through this thread has me confused.
So which pump will get me through a brew day a couple of minutes quicker? I really have no time to spare, so two or three minutes really means the world to me. I'd hate to have my brew day last an extra 5 minutes and miss my kids' first bike ride without training wheels. or possibly NOT make it to the bowl in time to void my bowels of last night's meatloaf. Someone help me.... I don't have 3 minutes to spare. I hate brewing and want it to be over as soon as possible.....aaarrrrggghhhhh.
Click to expand...

Why are you asking about which pump to buy?
You sound like you would be happier using hot rocks and ladles as your only brewing hardware so that you could brag that your brew day is actually brew days. Just don't come on here asking whether you can shave a few hours off by switching from granite to marble.

Admittedly, the time differences even between the center inlet and inline models is not that great, but the benefits of a better flowpath in reducing priming headaches, which usually results in the spilling of your beloved beer, are. Also, for whirlpooling, sometimes a slight gain makes all the difference.

If you already have an inline model- your pump sucks, and now that you know, you can no longer gaze with pride at your inferior equipment.
 
Bobby_M said:
I think it really comes down to whether you think it's worth $50 to flow 5 gallons 13 seconds faster.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to you can actually purchase a March pump. A Chugger pump is kind of like a Unicorn

Chugger clearly has major supply side planning issues
 
I really don't think it's possible to give single reasons to choose one over the other that will cover all prospective buyers. Everyone has different expectations, everyone has different setups that behave diffferently and introduce different amounts of restriction, requiring possibly different amounts of static pressure.

One of the important things for me when purchasing was longevity/reliability. March has been around for a while now and is a large company. They are well known and there is years of real-world testing and first hand proof of how well they work or do not work in various setups. It's been well documented on various forums/websites for years (which is the reason I went with the 3/4" front inlet instead of the usual 1/2" bottom inlet, but I digress...).

Chugger on the other hand is new. They are still making design modifications from batch to batch to make things better. Every company is new at one point in time of course, but given the complexities of my setup I figured I'd let someone else do the testing when it came to pumps, so I purchased March. It was one less variable for me to worry about.

These were my requirements, yours will be different. Figure out your own requirements and make the choice yourself. Don't let someone "tell" you which is better for you as, as the saying goes, YMMV.

Kal
 
We had them in stock till 3 weeks ago. The demand from US resellers, Canada and Australia was great but unexpected. We are continuing to mfg the pump and improve its design. New inventory due in 8-18-12

Many homebrew suppliers still stock them ...just do a search.. If you have a March and want to upgrade .....we are going to have a SS head giveaway soon!

Watch for it

Mike

call me anytime 800-810-1053

Airplanedoc said:
I think it comes down to you can actually purchase a March pump. A Chugger pump is kind of like a Unicorn

Chugger clearly has major supply side planning issues
Click to expand...
 
cwi said:
Personally, I have only anecdotal proof, but there have been more than a few tests showing that removing the 90s does increase flow, though I am not sure how competent the testers were.

I'm pretty confident in my flow testing, cwi.
Click to expand...
 
cwi said:
Personally, I have only anecdotal proof, but there have been more than a few tests showing that removing the 90s does increase flow, though I am not sure how competent the testers were.
Click to expand...

pearlbeer said:
I'm pretty confident in my flow testing, cwi.
Click to expand...
Yours was the anecdotal proof, and source for a baseline with just about everything wrong- small id camlocks, pump upside down, 90's, etc.

I can't remember who did the other flow tests where they actually measured things.

Your inline pumps still suck, and you bought at least one of them after I told you about the superiority of the center inlet. But then again, you bought a Mac and an Iphone, so conforming to the collective is the norm.
 
The data here is not supported by Chugger and is certainly not accurate. The performance specs of the pump are very close to identical. The pumps are not the same design as the Chugger reflects a larger input than the March pump. If you have questions pertaining to the performance of our product please call or email us anytime

MIKE


jbsengineer said:
I recently built an eBrewery. I followed most of Kal's plans but what I didn't follow was the pumps. I went with the latest edition of the Chugger Stainless Steel inline pumps. After two batches I found my flow rate in my mash/tun a bit subpar. Some research led me to believe that the flow should be a bit stronger and my ramp up times for mash-in and mash-out should be better. Also, I found that between the two Chugger pumps (Water & Wort) my Wort pump was anywhere from 5-10% slower.

So I ordered an 815-PL for some comparison testing. My testing showed the 815-PL beat the Chugger each time. Not by a great margin but enough to make a difference in my setup.

According to the Chugger website they are rated at 7GPM with an 18 feet maximum head. According to the March website, the 815-PL is also rated at 7GPM with a 18 feet maximum head.

I performed these tests against my "better" Chugger pump. (Again is some previous testing I found one pump to outperform the other by 5%-10% depending on the test)

I would give the results a +/- 2 seconds for accuracy. I repeated a few of them to get my testing down.

No Coil Test Details:

1) Filled HLT with water
2) Pumped 3.5 gallons into Mash/Tun
3) Connected 2x4' hoses
4) One connected from the HLT into the pump inlet
5) The outlet connected directly to the connection on the top of the Mash/Tun (The inlet on the mash/tun is connected to a 5' long piece of hose. I placed the outlet of the host on the bottle of the kettle (under 3.5Gallons of water). I did in order to add some resistence in the pumping. During my mashing process the host is under 1 inch or so of wort.
6) Prime pump and verify no air in order for a consistent test
7) Close pump valve and turn pump on
8) Open valve and start timer
9) Let the pump move 5 gallons of water into the Mash/Tun and stop timer.
10) Reset

The results between the two pumps. The test consisted of pumping 5 gallons of water directly without the 50' coil inline:

March 815-PL: 1min:17sec
Chugger: 1min:30sec


With Coil Test Details:

1) Filled HLT with water
2) Pumped 3.5 gallons into Mash/Tun
3) Connected 3x4' hoses
4) One connected from the HLT into the pump inlet
5) The outlet connected to the bottom inlet of the HERMs coil
6) The outlet of the HERMs coil is connected to the inlet of the Mash/Tun
7) Prime pump and verify no air in order for a consistent test
8) Close pump valve and turn pump on
9) Open valve and start timer
10) Let the pump move 5 gallons of water into the Mash/Tun and stop timer.
11) Reset

The results between the two pumps. The test consisted of pumping 5 gallons of water with a 50' HERMs coil inline:

March 815-PL: 2min:48sec
Chugger: 3min:10sec


In summary:

The Chugger performed at 85.5% of the speed of the March in the no coil test and 88.4% with the coil. Almost linear. The Chugger pumps ~.5 gallon less per 5 gallons. Again, as this was tested with my better performing Chugger pump, I'm a little curious to what these would numbers would look like against the other one. In my original testing I found a 5%-10% difference in performance.

I'm a bit dissapointed at the performance with the Chugger. I plan to keep the March and use the Chugger as a spare.

As an extra tidbit I also found the March to be better with priming and avoiding cavitating, hands down. It was also quieter.
Click to expand...
 
Ohhh kayyy then.

"Move along, folks. Nothing to see here."

What the mobile HBT app needs is emoticon support, so I could post an eyeroll right here...

Cheers!
 

Similar threads

pat_carnig
For Sale Parting out 15gal E-HERMS system
Replies
2
Views
319
pat_carnig
pat_carnig
R
For Sale (Indianapolis, IN) FOR SALE....custom built brew stand and ALL of the equipment
Replies
0
Views
619
retiringbrewer
R
SimplyBeginning
For Sale 20-gallon Spike+ Electric Brew System (HERMS)
Replies
3
Views
989
Dusty Bottoms
D
B
For Sale 3-Vessel Single-Tier Direct-Fire Beer Brewstand Pilot System
Replies
0
Views
545
BrettinSD
B
A
Sold Price Reduced - Single Tier, 3 Vessel RIMS, Propane Brewing System - San Diego, CA
Replies
2
Views
1K
archimedes29
A

Latest posts

Back
Top