Counter Flow Wort Chiller

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.

Rockweezy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Location
Oahu, HI
I am looking to purchase my first wort chiller. When I look at various posts, I notice there are counter flow wort chillers as well. Are the more efficient that the typical wort chiller? I live in Hawaii, so the hose water is always pretty warm. I dunno if that effects which one to get. Thanks.
 
Counter flow wort chillers are definitely more efficient then immersion chillers. I found that I can cool my wort down to around the temperature of the hose water while only using about 5 gallons of water over a 10 minute period. Not to mention that there are several benefits to using a counter flow design: Faster cooling times which also means sooner pitch times, less water consumption, lower levels of DMS due to the quicker chilling time, and finally you leave a smaller window for bacteria to jump in and contaminate.
 
I have to argue with the lower levels of DMS part of that. Yes, counterflow chillers are more efficient, meaning they will get your boil closer to the actual groundwater temperature faster. Remember, however, that with a counterflow you are only cooling one part of the wort at a time, leaving the rest behind to produce DMS that isn't being boiled off, as well as losing hop aroma. With an immersion chiller you are cooling all of the wort to lower (non-DMS producing temps) at the same time. You will probably need to add sanitary ice to get the last few degrees but a little preparation and recipe adjustment and this is no issue.

Use what works for you they are both great options.
 
I'm going to be building myself an immersion chiller following the thread in the DIY section(thanks). But all in all it's pretty much presonal preference. They both have their pros and cons.
 
A counter flow design does only cool a small portion at a once but it flies through 5 gallons in very little time. From all the sites I have read it takes a lot longer for an immersion chiller to reduce 5 gallons of wort down to safe temperatures than it does for a counter flow chiller. I argue this, but I have only ever used a counter flow chiller so I really don't have the right to make the statement in the first place.
 
I've used both (though I only use a CFC now) and for me the cooling times were comparable. I just prefer the CFC since I can use much less water to cool the same amount of wort and that is important to me. Brewing requires a lot of water and I like to minimize wherever possible. For this reason I run the output of the cooling water into a large tub and use that warm water for cleaning.

The key to getting the immersion chiller to work quickly is to get it moving around in the wort, don't just leave it sitting there. Stir the wort with the chiller or get a whirlpool moving around the coils and it will take the temperature down very quickly.
 
I just thought of something....

Who says you have to stop boiling when using a counterflow chiller?? Why not just keep the wort boiling and shutoff the flame when there a few gallons left.

I guess this would throw off your hop additions tho...nevermind :)
 
bigben said:
I just thought of something....

Who says you have to stop boiling when using a counterflow chiller?? Why not just keep the wort boiling and shutoff the flame when there a few gallons left.

I guess this would throw off your hop additions tho...nevermind :)

Why would it throw off your hop additions any more than if you turned the heat off? Think about it, you will be draining wort at the same speed whether or not the flame is on, so in fact, it makes no difference. The wort will only drain so fast either way, the little bit of extra heat in the wort will do nothing for the hops addition one way or the other.
 
Cuz your boiling them still. Boiling the hops removes some hop flavor as the oils get boiled off.
 
I can only assume that people are using chillers after flameout additions.

As far as the DMS argument, I guess it depends on if you are using a pump or not. The argument for higher DMS makes more sense if you are using gravity. If you are using a pump, use some pre-chilled water into the CFC and run all 5-6 gallons through quickly to get a fast temp drop. Once you get your temp drop, then recirculate through the CFC to get to your desired temperature.

Just my thoughts... This could be way off base.
 
sigmund said:
Why would it throw off your hop additions any more than if you turned the heat off? Think about it, you will be draining wort at the same speed whether or not the flame is on, so in fact, it makes no difference. The wort will only drain so fast either way, the little bit of extra heat in the wort will do nothing for the hops addition one way or the other.
In addition to the boil-off I mentioned before, you will also extract more alpha acids from your hop additions adding to the bitterness of your beer. And as mentioned you will also drive off more of the flavour and aroma compounds that were already present.
 
If you are going to use a pump, why not do this?: http://www.mrmalty.com/chiller.php

Cooling a liquid is all about surface area, delta T and turbulance. You could whirlpool by hand with an immersion chiller but, it does add some risk of contamination. For a lot of beers (ales) the DMS generated while cooling with a plate or CFC, may not be noticeable. If you're doing something really delicate, cooling the entire wort as quickly as possible, may pay off in the finished beer.

Why not let the technology we have work for us?
 
bradsul said:
In addition to the boil-off I mentioned before, you will also extract more alpha acids from your hop additions adding to the bitterness of your beer. And as mentioned you will also drive off more of the flavour and aroma compounds that were already present.

In the approximately 10-15 minutes it takes to gravity feed 5 gallons of wort through a CFC, how much of a delta T do you think there would be between wort that was in a flameout and keeping a mild flame under the wort while draining? I don't believe the difference in the amount of liquid that evaporates out of the wort will have any reall effect on the overall chemistry or taste.
 
I see no reason to keep a flame under the kettle during the cooling process. DMS will drive off regardless (this is why you don't cover it up) and keeping the wort at a boil will isomerize more alpha acids and drive off flavour and aromatic compounds - both of which will change the flavour and characteristics of your beer.

Conversely if you're not having the flame on in order to keep it at a boil, there is no point in wasting the gas, you want the wort to cool down anyway.
 
I have not done it yet, but the other advantage of a CFC is using a hopback, that way you can use hot wort through the hops and immediately cool that wort and lock in the taste and aroma.
 
Back
Top