HERMS advice

[BigDog007]

Hey All. I've been brewing a while now and the past several brews I've been using a herms coil to heat my sparge water and the recirculating.

A question I have is after you all mash in how (if at all) do you cool down the HLT for the recirc? I'm concerned since my Sparge water is normally at 165-175 that I could denature the enzymes before it cools down.

Would really like to hear how others are doing this?

Does anyone start with the desired mash temp, mash in and then let it rise to temp?

Thanks, RP

 

[BrunDog]

I think you meant strike water, not sparge water?

I think HERMs should be extinct as the dodo, but you need something more productive I am sure.

You just add some fresh water to the HLT. That brings up the level, which you need, and lowers the net liquid temp of the HLT.

DtH!

 

[BigDog007]

I did mean strike water, lol. I did add fresh water to the HLT to bring temp down during my last brew session. Guess that will be the new normal.

 

[hvjackson]

One way to deal with this problem is to heat HLT to your desired mash temp (not above), transfer your strike water to MLT first and then run your HERMS recirculation pump for a few minutes so that all of the water and equipment is at your desired temp. When you dough-in the temp will drop a few degrees but not that much, and should get back to your desired temp in a few minutes of recirculation.

The Electric Brewery has a very detailed step-by-step brewday tutorial if you want to read through it: http://www.theelectricbrewery.com/brew-day-step-by-step?page=1 . Obviously your equipment setup may not be identical but it should give you a pretty good sense of their workflow.

 

[jrcrilly]

Then, after conversion is complete, heat the HLT to 170 for mashout and use the HERMS to bring the mash temp up. When it is time to sparge the HLT is already there.

 

[BrunDog]

Then, after conversion is complete, heat the HLT to 170 for mashout and use the HERMS to bring the mash temp up. When it is time to sparge the HLT is already there.

Hmmm... mashout and sparge temp the same. Coincidence?!? I

 

[Dcpcooks]

You can add some cool water if you want to mash at one temp. I have a pump recirculating in my HLT. If that pump is off then a see about a 8 degree difference in my wort out of the coil vs the hlt temp. With the pump on it's about 3 degrees different. So I dough in turn everything off and let it sit for about 20 min to set the bed. Then I recirc to maintain mash temps and turn my HLT pump on once everything has come to equilibrium.

I'm a big fan of mashing in at 144 for 20-30 min then ramping to 158 for 30 min before I ramp to sparge temps for a mash out. That schedule works great for an IPA. Creates a nice fermentable wort with some malt backbone. Got the schedule from Mitch Steele's IPA. If I remember it was the Union Jack recipe.

 

[highland_brewer]

I usually put 2-3 gallons of room temp water in the HLT, heat my entire volume of water in my BK (minus the room temp water on the HLT) transfer the proper amount of mash water at the proper temp to the MLT, Then when I transfer the remaining water in the BK to the HLT the room temperature water adjusts the temp to just below the mash in temp. Then it is simple to heat the HLT to mash set point.

As you can see many ways to get the job done... the one that works for you is the right one!

Cheers
Brian

 

[mtbr_brewer]

I've been racking my brain around the same question. I've also been dumping a couple gallons of room temp water in the HLT to bring temps down. However, I've been using RO water and rebuilding with salts per Kal's new instructions, so I'd rather not alter that mixture too much.

I was just thinking, most setups are going to have a few degrees of separation between MT and HLT due to temp loses (we aren't all as lucky as Kal). So why not heat your water with that difference in mind (3* for me) and then use that temp for strike water? For instance if you are mashing at 151* set HLT to 154* and use that as strike water. You'd basically be halving the drop in temps due to the grain (mine is roughly 6*), and then you'd be more efficient in reaching your target temp.

As hvjackson mentioned it looks like Kal doesn't account for this in his system, not that he is the ultimate authority, but I know he makes stellar beer. However, I'm not sure I could ramp up to target as quickly as Kal can. I'm running 4500w elements currently.

BrunDog, I am quiet interested in your RIMs setup (smaller footprint, less cleaning, more control, etc.), and will need to take some time to look at it more thoroughly. I've considered the jump to RIMs from HERMs but I think my fiancé might kill me if she sees any more brewing equipment show up!

 

[Cavpilot2000]

I think HERMs should be extinct as the dodo

Why so?
I ask not to be argumentative, but because I am considering building a HERMS setup, as I think it's better than RIMS (at least for my style/ needs).
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, what you prefer to HERMS, and why.

 

[jrcrilly]

If you can directly heat your mash tun, you can be even more efficient. I heat the HLT to mash temp, transfer strike water, then heat the strike water to strike temp while maintaining the HLT temperature. The smaller volume of strike water heats much more quickly than bringing the entire HLT up to strike temps and then reducing it to mash temps.

 

[BrewKaiser]

My recommendation is to do some test runs with water and also take copious notes of temp changes during brewing of your HLT and MLT temps during strike and dough-in. Every brew session I record ambient room temp, MLT starting temp (ambient empty temp before strike transfer), initial strike temp and time, as well as HLT. It's just a matter of learning your system and predicting how it will react and the time it takes to recover and hit mash temp. I learned that during mash the MLT return temp (measured where wort returns to MLT from HERMs) needs to be 2-3* higher than target mash temp as my MLT temp probe is often 2-3* lower. Based on BrunDog's recommendation I now shoot for the average of these two.

The thermal mass of most of MLTs used require strike water that is typically 10* over your mash temp (again depending on total grain bill, MLT weight, and other factors). Transfer pre-heated strike volume to MLT at calculated strike temp, cut heat to HLT, and recirculate for a bit before dough in and you'll see your temps in both MLT and HLT normalize. It will just be a matter of finding the right combination of temps for your system. If doing LODO brewing, then finer adjustments will be needed as you will under-let your grains so extended re-circ prior to dough-in is not possible. This is where pre-heating strike water and sparge water in separate vessels is helpful or using RIMS to heat strike water to desired temp while underletting.

If you top off your HLT with room temp water for your Sparge volume right away then you may have the opposite problem of being under mash temp as the volume of sparge water in HLT comes up to mash temp. Again this all depends on batch size and set up.

The 5 minutes it takes to get your mash to desired temp won't hurt anything, and certainly doing step mashes is a great way squeeze more mash efficiency out of your session, but may cost you more time.

I use a dedicated HEX which to me is a best of both worlds between RIMS and HERMs. it's a 20' HERMs coils in a 3.5 gal dedicated heat exchange vessel with a 3000W element- think either mini HLT HERMs or oversized RIMS, but with HERMs coil instead of direct contact with element. I still pre-heat my strike water in the HLT and transfer to my MLT. I use RO and add my mash mineral adjustments in MLT prior to dough-in. The recirc prior helps to dissolve the minerals.

Don't despair, MANY brewers user a 3 vessel HERMs set up and make fantastic beer. It just takes time to learn and understand how your system reacts to your environment.

 

[BrunDog]

Why so?
I ask not to be argumentative, but because I am considering building a HERMS setup, as I think it's better than RIMS (at least for my style/ needs).
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, what you prefer to HERMS, and why.

The argument is akin to who's the better football team: OSU or UM?!?

With that, I want to be cautious and not alienate myself! For me it is simple as I do not have an HLT and heat sparge water on the fly. Otherwise, I like the simplicity of directly heating liquid vs. heating liquid to heat liquid. BK's solution above is definitely a best of all worlds, but it requires more hardware and associated cost.

The real issue is the HLT, and since you need a way to heat strike and sparge water, HERMs is a great way to do that with one element. If you did 3 elements, then RIMS makes more sense as you don't have the limitations or HLT/HERMs above (slow heating,, slow ramps, etc.). I believe there is a RIMS design which would serve both roles - I posted the high level concept somewhere recently but don't recall where. But the gist is a RIMs tube with three-way valves at each end and an HLT that is nothing more than an storage vessel. Input side switches between HLT exit and MLT exit, outlet side switches between HLT return and MLT return. RIMs would have high/low power switch circuit. Fill HLT, recirc and heat that water, transfer to MLT, recirc and heat that water, dough in, recirc, mashout, switch to HLT water and heat it to sparge temp, sparge, etc.

Anyway, lots of ways to skin a cat. I just feel that there is a another, maybe better, way than the way its always been done!

 

[Cavpilot2000]

I'm pretty low-tech now. I use a cooler for a mash tun, so I don't have the ability do direct heat.
I heat my strike water in my kettle, then I step mash by boiling water infusions, which are heated in the kettle, as is my sparge water. It's effectively a 2-vessel system without recirculation (I stir the mash every 15-20 minutes). It actually works pretty well, but I wouldn't mind being able to step mash without infusing.

It seems to me that direct-heating the mash tun (an insulated metal MT) with un-heated recirculation just to equalize temps, would be both the easiest and most efficient setup. But I imagine if that were so, more people would be doing THAT.
Why is this not the most efficient/effective method (direct fired mash tun with recirculation)?

 

[jrcrilly]

It seems to me that direct-heating the mash tun (an insulated metal MT) with un-heated recirculation just to equalize temps, would be both the easiest and most efficient setup. But I imagine if that were so, more people would be doing THAT.
Why is this not the most efficient/effective method (direct fired mash tun with recirculation)?

Everyone just does it the way they like to do it. When I built my current system, I did give it the capability to operate as you describe but I continue to use the HERMS mode that is also available because I like it and it is there. If you only want to have one controlled burner then the direct RIMS would be easier and cheaper to implement than HERMS. It would respond more quickly, too. You would have to be sure to apply heat only during recirculation, though, and gently even then, to avoid wort scorching. I mounted the MLT burner lower than the others to calm it down a little.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

Everyone just does it the way they like to do it. When I built my current system, I did give it the capability to operate as you describe but I continue to use the HERMS mode that is also available because I like it and it is there. If you only want to have one controlled burner then the direct RIMS would be easier and cheaper to implement than HERMS. It would respond more quickly, too. You would have to be sure to apply heat only during recirculation, though, and gently even then, to avoid wort scorching. I mounted the MLT burner lower than the others to calm it down a little.

I'm not really talking about RIMS though - I'm thnking more like a propane (or electric) burner under the MT. The recirculating portion isn't heated in the model I'm picturing here.

Though I suppose you could consider it RIMS-ish, except that the heating isn't in-line.

 

[jrcrilly]

I'm not really talking about RIMS though - I'm thnking more like a propane (or electric) burner under the MT. The recirculating portion isn't heated in the model I'm picturing here.

Though I suppose you could consider it RIMS-ish, except that the heating isn't in-line.

It is RIMS. People frequently use that generic term to refer to a specific form, externally heated RIMS, but it is RIMS whether directly or externally heated.

It is RIMS if you are recirculating. Lost heat due to the recirculation pretty much mandates some means of adding replacement heat but how you do it your choice.

 

[GoeHaarden]

I'm not really talking about RIMS though - I'm thnking more like a propane (or electric) burner under the MT. The recirculating portion isn't heated in the model I'm picturing here.

Though I suppose you could consider it RIMS-ish, except that the heating isn't in-line.

My understanding is that directly heating the MT with a propane burner could lend to scorching your grain, but again just my "limited knowledge" understanding.

+1 to RIMS

Cavpilot - I, too, use a 2 vessel system with a cooler as my MT, and mine is very budget friendly. I was using a copper IC in my HLT over propane as a modified HERMS. I made the switch to RIMS, because my HERMS setup responded slowly and seemed to be subject to over/under-shooting.

Like BrunDog said, "lots of ways to skin a cat." I just wish I could skin my cat like BrunDog, his rig is EPIC!

 

[jrcrilly]

My understanding is that directly heating the MT with a propane burner could lend to scorching...

+1 to RIMS

You still have the same issue with externally heated RIMS - and to a greater degree because of the very small volume in the heat chamber. My preference is first HERMS, then direct RIMS, then external RIMS.

 

[GoeHaarden]

You still have the same issue with externally heated RIMS - and to a greater degree because of the very small volume in the heat chamber. My preference is first HERMS, then direct RIMS, then external RIMS.

The wort is constantly flowing through the RIMS tube, and the fluid entering the tube will be slightly cooler than the fluid exiting. Thus, normalizing the temperature as liquid passes through. Wouldn't that decrease the chances of scorching? Is there a specific temp that automatically scorches? Just curious...

jrcrilly, your HERMS setup is very impressive btw...

 

[jrcrilly]

The wort is constantly flowing through the RIMS tube, and the fluid entering the tube will be slightly cooler than the fluid exiting. Thus, normalizing the temperature as liquid passes through. Wouldn't that decrease the chances of scorching?

If flow stops, scorching is pretty much inevitable in an external RIMS setup. It isn't an issue because folks are careful to kill the heat if the flow stops. In directly heated RIMS you also have the flow to reduce scorching, but also much more volume to decrease the chances further - even if the flow were to cease.

All that said, external RIMS setups appear to be the most popular configuration. I can see that it would be easier and cheaper to implement than HERMS, though direct RIMS seems easier and cheaper yet.I have never tried it myself because I prefer gas heat and that isn't sufficiently fast in response for that mode.

 

[GoeHaarden]

I can see that it would be easier and cheaper to implement than HERMS, though direct RIMS seems easier and cheaper yet.I have never tried it myself because I prefer gas heat and that isn't sufficiently fast in response for that mode.

Hey jrcrilly, I would trade my RIMS system for your HERMS any day. So, if you ever get tired of yours just PM me.

And I totally agree with constant flow to prevent scorching. During my testing phase I forgot to turn the pump on while the element was heating, and my tubing started bouncing all over the place. I quickly figured out my water was boiling inline...

I typically brew at the edge of my garage (driveway is too pitched), and therefore automated gas scares the crap out of me. Otherwise, I'd probably be advancing my old HERMS setup. I even bought a solenoid and 12v igniter to do such thing...just don't want to blow myself into the living room.


, but I think a valid point has been made towards the OP. And that is to figure out what works for you and your setup.

 

[BrunDog]

If flow stops, scorching is pretty much inevitable in an external RIMS setup.

This is a solid point and major detractor of RIMS I failed to mention above. I recommend anyone with RIMS use an inline flow switch or (software logic in automated systems). These are easy and cheap enough. Here is one (1/2" NPT verified though others seen for half this price, just need thread verification: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2PT-Male-...ter-Flow-Sensor-Switch-100V-10W-/231212360068)

 

[GoeHaarden]

This is a solid point and major detractor of RIMS I failed to mention above. I recommend anyone with RIMS use an inline flow switch or (software logic in automated systems). These are easy and cheap enough. Here is one (1/2" NPT verified though others seen for half this price, just need thread verification: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2PT-Male-...ter-Flow-Sensor-Switch-100V-10W-/231212360068)

What if I measure the temp right at the heating element and set my target appropriately? I feel I can bypass this flow switch all together!!! My heating function will shut the element off if the temp at the element (literally within an inch via thermowell) is > than the target. In other words, if flow stops and stagnation begins then the temp in my RIMS tube will increase until it hits the target temp. Once the target temp is achieved, then heating will stop. Regardless of flow this fail-safe will stop heating if either element or mash temp is >= target...

edit: re-read your post and actually processed "(software logic in automated systems)," therefore disregard my initial response. I bow to you my friend...

 

[cod3ck]

This is a solid point and major detractor of RIMS I failed to mention above. I recommend anyone with RIMS use an inline flow switch or (software logic in automated systems). These are easy and cheap enough. Here is one (1/2" NPT verified though others seen for half this price, just need thread verification: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2PT-Male-...ter-Flow-Sensor-Switch-100V-10W-/231212360068)

I'm guessing best setup would be to have the flow switch directly upstream of the element?

 

[BrunDog]

Upstream yes. Directly not so important. As long as it is in the flow path. Liquid is not compressible so if flow stops, it stops everywhere in the pipe.