Immersion Chiller Comparison (Custom JaDeD Hydra vs. Stainless 50ft 1/2")

[somekindofnick]

I compared two immersion chillers--a stainless steel 50ft 1/2" coil and a custom Hydra from JaDeD. I completed two tests--10 gallons of water and 5 gallons of wort.

The Hydra was the best performer, especially when the wort level was lower in the kettle (i.e. 5 gallon batches). The stainless did not perform as well as the Hydra because the coils were too tall and extended above the fluid level.

Furthermore, I don't mean to understate the craftsmanship and creativity that went into the Hydra. The Hydra splits the water flow into three separate coils before returning to one outlet. This is like using three immersion chillers at once!

Summary results:

10 gallons of water:

5 gallons of wort:

I documented my results here with detailed data sheets: http://e30dohc.com/wordpress/?p=13

I spoke to JaDeD about the results and they were not satisfied with the chilling time. In addition to pointing out a couple of issues/anomalies (i.e. Hydra chilling wort to cooler than ground water temp, hose length longer than 6ft), JaDeD felt that the Hydra should be chilling twice as fast as my results. As such, I plan to run additional tests in the coming weeks. More to come!

 

[progmac]

thanks for this. i'm hoping to upgrade to one of the jaded chillers soon

 

[Misplaced_Canuck]

The Hydra splits the water flow into three separate coils before returning to one outlet. This is like using three immersion chillers at once!

Well, you're still using the same amount of water with the same potential cooling effect. The advantage of having 3 chambers is that you are introducing cold water at different places within the volume of wort, and if that wort isn't circulating within the brewpot, yes, you will have a greater/faster heat exchange.

MC

 

[barnaclebob]

In order to get a measure of efficiency of a chiller you need to make sure the water flow rate is the same for each.

I could build a 3/4" dia chiller that would cool very fast but i'd have to have water blasting through it. For the same amount of coil length, diameter, flow rate it shouldn't matter if you split the flow in to 3 coils. I suspect that most of the gains from the Hydra are from running 3 coils at approximately 3 times the flow rate.

So how you decide to "upgrade" from one chiller to another is dependent on whether you want more speed or more efficiency.

This does bring up an interesting question though. Say I am only concerned about speed and don't want to fork out money to buy another chiller. I have a 50' copper chiller that I operate with the water on full blast, would it cool faster if i cut say 10' of it which would allow more water to flow through it... I guess it would depend on the cooling area lost in combination with the greater average temp delta from the water to the beer.

 

[progmac]

In order to get a measure of efficiency of a chiller you need to make sure the water flow rate is the same for each.

I could build a 3/4" dia chiller that would cool very vast but i'd have to have water blasting through it. For the same amount of coil length, diameter, flow rate it shouldn't matter if you split the flow in to 3 coils. I suspect that most of the gains from the Hydra are from running 3 coils at approximately 3 times the flow rate.

So how you decide to "upgrade" from one chiller to another is dependent on whether you want more speed or more efficiency.

well i'm using a 25' stainless steel chiller right now. it takes 20-30 minutes if i'm actively stirring the entire time. it's easily the most labor intensive part of brew day.

anything would be an upgrade. but the idea of cooling my batch to below 70 in 5 minutes would make my day so much better.

 

[somekindofnick]

Part two here:
http://e30dohc.com/wordpress/?p=35

 

[E-DUBB]

great post! are you going to test the hydra vs a 50ft copper immersion chiller as well...or maybe introduce pre-chillers into the mix?

i can get my wort down to 66-68 degrees in 15 minutes by using a pre-chiller (adding ice once temps reach 100-90 degrees + stirring like crazy)/immersion chiller combo.

judging from the 5 gallon data, the hydra would be a good addition to my current chilling process.

sounds like a win to me!

 

[jbaysurfer]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this difference as significant at all? The difference in the 5G test (and props to the OP for making this post btw) is easily accounted for by the fact that some of the coils weren't submerged. The other tests are hardly significant.

I see a lot about prechillers on this board, but I've done it both way, prechiller and cheap pond pump in a bucket of Ice water. Try the latter and you'll never use your prechiller again. You have to constantly agitate the ice and the wort in a prechiller setup, and to do it most efficiently you'll have to dial back the water flow through the chiller, which will somewhat offset the additional cooling speed a prechiller gives you. The pond pump is much cheaper then a coil.

The Hydra video shows them using a pond pump system btw IIRC....other then the pretty coil pattern, there's really not much that's unique about the Hydra system, though I mean them no disrespect. I do think their design helps over a 50' coil chiller in the example shown, because it gets all the surface area below the wort level...

 

[wilserbrewer]

Am I the only one who doesn't see this difference as significant at all? The difference in the 5G test (and props to the OP for making this post btw) is easily accounted for by the fact that some of the coils weren't submerged. The other tests are hardly significant.
..

Yes I agree, the difference in the 10 gallon test doesn't really move me. The difference with the 5 gallon test is invalid as the SS chiller was only partially submerged, and of course the performance suffered.

The fancy designs of the Jaded chillers, while impressive design wise, don't seem to perform all that much faster. Perhaps with colder water the Jaded chillers would outperform a standard design chiller, but then again with colder influent, a conventional shaped chiller works pretty darn well.

I once used a tiny 25' copper chiller on a 15 gallon batch, and while i don't have the data, it worked pretty well....yea I think the cold winter well water helped a lot.

 

[fosaisu]

I compared two immersion chillers--a stainless steel 50ft 1/2" coil and a custom Hydra from JaDeD. I completed two tests--10 gallons of water and 5 gallons of wort.

Thanks for sharing the results of your experiment! Can you confirm that you controlled flow rate across the various tests to be the same for both chillers (and in both the 5 and 10 gallon tests)? As others have noted that can be a key variable.

 

[somekindofnick]

great post! are you going to test the hydra vs a 50ft copper immersion chiller as well...or maybe introduce pre-chillers into the mix?

I don't have any more tests planned. This test happened by chance since I bought the stainless and didn't realize I lost effectiveness due to the coil height.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this difference as significant at all? The difference in the 5G test (and props to the OP for making this post btw) is easily accounted for by the fact that some of the coils weren't submerged. The other tests are hardly significant.

The JaDeD design was faster than the stainless coil. Whether this is due to increased flow or surface area, I can't say. What matters to me is chilling as fast as possible. By that measure, the JaDeD wins.

Regarding the 5 gallon batch, the reason I bought the JaDeD was because the stainless wasn't effective in a 5 gallon batch. As such, this is really the more meaningful test for the 5 gallon batch brewer (i.e. me). I get the cooling capacity of the stainless + some compressed into the appropriate height for a 5 gallon batch.

...I do think their design helps over a 50' coil chiller in the example shown, because it gets all the surface area below the wort level...

Exactly.

The difference with the 5 gallon test is invalid as the SS chiller was only partially submerged, and of course the performance suffered.

See above--having the coils (cooling area) submerged gives a significant advantage to the JaDeD for smaller batches.

Thanks for sharing the results of your experiment! Can you confirm that you controlled flow rate across the various tests to be the same for both chillers (and in both the 5 and 10 gallon tests)? As others have noted that can be a key variable.

The flow rate and water volume are in the detailed worksheets, which I listed in the full blog post. Here is the worksheet for the second test.

 

[jpalarchio]

I really appreciate the time that went into testing and gathering data, I know that's not a small task to do tests like these. For that, thank you.

It does seem though that the results show that there is basically no difference.

Looking at your tests, the JaDed seemed to be anywhere from 2 - 4 minutes faster; it also used about 30 more gallons of water. I pay for water whereas 4 minutes of my 6-hour brew day doesn't cost me a penny. (30 gallons costs me about $0.72 so not a significant amount but there is a cost)

On top of that, I think you need to look at the cleaning aspect of stainless versus copper. You probably spent those 4 minutes cleaning the hop residue and break material out of all the coils of the JaDed as opposed to a quick hose down of the stainless chiller. Plus there will come a point where that copper will need some care.

I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think statements like saying the JaDed was "40% faster" are a bit misleading if not considered within the context. It also used "30% more water" (which is a whopping 72 cents).

In my opinion, what you've proven here is that they're basically the same and either is a suitable option depending on your personal preferences.

 

[cfrazier77]

Thanks for posting this data, I recently got a JaDeD and used it on a 10 gallon batch. Before I used a 50' 1/2" copper and before that I used a 45' 3/8" copper. I was surprised how much quicker the JaDeD cooled compared to the others. I guess it was about 10 minutes quicker than the 50' 1/2", and that is will all of its coils in the wort. I am very pleased with the JaDeD.

 

[somekindofnick]

I really appreciate the time that went into testing and gathering data, I know that's not a small task to do tests like these. For that, thank you.

It does seem though that the results show that there is basically no difference.

Looking at your tests, the JaDed seemed to be anywhere from 2 - 4 minutes faster; it also used about 30 more gallons of water. I pay for water whereas 4 minutes of my 6-hour brew day doesn't cost me a penny. (30 gallons costs me about $0.72 so not a significant amount but there is a cost)

...

I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think statements like saying the JaDed was "40% faster" are a bit misleading if not considered within the context. It also used "30% more water" (which is a whopping 72 cents).

In my opinion, what you've proven here is that they're basically the same and either is a suitable option depending on your personal preferences.

Whether you value the 4 minute savings is your call. We all have different priorities, so it may not be worth the potential additional water to you.

On the balance, I agree--I would be satisfied with either chiller for a 10 gallon batch. However, I brew 5 gallon batches and wasn't getting the performance I paid for with the stainless. The JaDeD makes a huge difference here by compressing the coils into a lower height. Here the time savings is substantial and the JaDeD is undeniably superior.

My intent was never to mislead. If I tell you that I cut my cost down by 50%, that sounds great until I tell you that the cost is a $1. This is the nature of math. These top-end chillers are fast, so 20-40% is not going to be a significant amount of time. As such, either chiller would provide a significant savings over a standard 25' coil.

On top of that, I think you need to look at the cleaning aspect of stainless versus copper. You probably spent those 4 minutes cleaning the hop residue and break material out of all the coils of the JaDed as opposed to a quick hose down of the stainless chiller. Plus there will come a point where that copper will need some care.

I do appreciate the shiny aspect of stainless vs. copper. To be fair, though, the cleaning time was the same for both--spray down with the hose.

What changes over time with the copper chiller?

In my opinion, what you've proven here is that they're basically the same and either is a suitable option depending on your personal preferences.

That's fair. Despite the "apples-to-oranges" comparison, my goal was to see if the JaDeD performed better for my 5 gallon batch size than the stainless. The JaDeD outperformed the stainless mostly because of the lower coil height. This is a fair comparison in my circumstance. I would need a very strong personal preference to keep the stainless given the longer chilling time.

 

[jbaysurfer]

To me the whole point is that it's not a very controlled study if you didn't use the same water throughput. If anything the more I look at it, the more I'm forced to conclude that only difference in the two chillers is the shape. You said this:

The Custom Hydra chilled the water to 92F (10F over ground water temp) within 7-8 minutes vs. 10 minutes for the stainless. This is 20-30% better than the stainless chiller.

But that underlines some errors of conclusion IMO. 1) 92 is an arbitrary data point. Your data table doesn't show the data points you refer too, but I take your word for their accuracy. Unfortunately it looks like you cherry picked the largest data point spread in the entire data set on which to predicate your "20-30%" difference, and yet your conclusion ignores that you used MORE then 20-30% more water?

I'm with others who are very grateful for your work, and for sharing it, but I don't think it supports the conclusions you draw.

As an edit: since this is a consumer product, the real crux is what premium would one pay in price for an incremental (if any gain). I trust what you say about the total immersion of the Jaded vs. the Coil in a 5G batch, but for the time savings of maybe 1% of your brewday you spend 30% more on your chiller without exploring other, cheaper options (pond pump in an icewater bucket to your coil chiller) that would probably save you even more time.

 

[jammin]

these hydra chillers are a gimmick.


there are 2 factors in heat exchangers - surface area and ground water temp.

if you have high ground water temp, then a lot of surface area isn't gonna help.


if you have cold ground water, the extra surface will be very useful and as it can transfer/exchange the heat. it doesnt really matter how fancy the length of the chiller is bent.


this is not magic - just simple thermodynamics

 

[jpalarchio]

What changes over time with the copper chiller?

Copper over time oxidizes to a dull finish (which is fine) and occasionally to a green color that then needs to be addressed.

Certainly the largest percentage of wort chillers used by homebrewers are made of copper and people largely do not have issues with them when used regularly. I have seen some pretty ugly copper chillers though that have been dug out of storage.

 

[somekindofnick]

To me the whole point is that it's not a very controlled study if you didn't use the same water throughput.

This wasn't a controlled study. It was a homebrewer's comparison between two wort chillers.

If anything the more I look at it, the more I'm forced to conclude that only difference in the two chillers is the shape. You said this:

But that underlines some errors of conclusion IMO. 1) 92 is an arbitrary data point.

92F is not an arbitrary data point. 92 was 10F over the ground water temperature. This is consistent with the tests JaDeD does (see here).

Your data table doesn't show the data points you refer too, but I take your word for their accuracy.

Not sure what you mean here. I only measured once per minute, so all the data is in the table. Any implied data in the chart is from connecting the dots.

Unfortunately it looks like you cherry picked the largest data point spread in the entire data set on which to predicate your "20-30%" difference, and yet your conclusion ignores that you used MORE then 20-30% more water?

I addressed the cherry picking comment above. Furthermore, the gap grew after that point, making the case worse for the stainless. Consider, at 92F there was a delta of 2-3 minutes vs. at 84F there is a 5 minute difference.

I'm with others who are very grateful for your work, and for sharing it, but I don't think it supports the conclusions you draw.

I stated the facts as I measured them. For my purposes, the JaDeD design worked better. For yours, it might be different.
If you are trying to say the stainless is better than the JaDeD for a 5 gallon batch, I think you would have a tough time.

As an edit: since this is a consumer product, the real crux is what premium would one pay in price for an incremental (if any gain). I trust what you say about the total immersion of the Jaded vs. the Coil in a 5G batch, but for the time savings of maybe 1% of your brewday you spend 30% more on your chiller without exploring other, cheaper options (pond pump in an icewater bucket to your coil chiller) that would probably save you even more time.

Yeah, I'm not Consumer Reports. I approached this discussion from one perspective--time to chill. Water, though an important holistic consideration, was not the focus (though I did measure and report it). Buying a pond pump and ice adds hassle factor, which, again, is a personal preference matter.

I'm not a shill. I spent some time and collected some data. It's here for your consumption. The only conclusion I made was that this is a simple way to get quick chilling time, and the JaDeD design allows you to get more cooling potential in smaller batches.

Copper over time oxidizes to a dull finish (which is fine) and occasionally to a green color that then needs to be addressed.

You're right--I'm familiar with copper patina. Never had an issue with this on my previous copper immersion chiller, but I believe one can remedy it with vinegar or StarSan. This is not a concern with stainless.

 

[jbaysurfer]

You're too defensive. There are all kinds of issues I have with your responses, but I'm not doing a peer review here, I'm merely trying to glean if there's any meaningful difference. I only have one thing to address and I consider it a fatal flaw:

I approached this discussion from one perspective--time to chill. Water, though an important holistic consideration, was not the focus (though I did measure and report it).

If you wanted to glean ANYTHING of meaning from it, the water flow is a CRITICAL...not "holistic" consideration. You used MORE then 30% the amount of water, and claimed a 20-30% improvement in chill time.

I genuinely think your bias is showing. I don't think you're a shill, I think you're just like any of the rest of us who might have a bias to confirm that we made a good purchase decision.

I'm not sure what you expected to get in response to this thread, but I would've expected a fair amount of critical examination if I were you.

 

[jbaysurfer]

these hydra chillers are a gimmick.


there are 2 factors in heat exchangers - surface area and ground water temp.

if you have high ground water temp, then a lot of surface area isn't gonna help.


if you have cold ground water, the extra surface will be very useful and as it can transfer/exchange the heat. it doesnt really matter how fancy the length of the chiller is bent.


this is not magic - just simple thermodynamics

I was trying to be less pointed, but I'm the one who got pushback. LOL...too funny.

 

[somekindofnick]

You're too defensive. There are all kinds of issues I have with your responses, but I'm not doing a peer review here, I'm merely trying to glean if there's any meaningful difference. I only have one thing to address and I consider it a fatal flaw:

If you wanted to glean ANYTHING of meaning from it, the water flow is a CRITICAL...not "holistic" consideration. You used MORE then 30% the amount of water, and claimed a 20-30% improvement in chill time.

I genuinely think your bias is showing. I don't think you're a shill, I think you're just like any of the rest of us who might have a bias to confirm that we made a good purchase decision.

I'm not sure what you expected to get in response to this thread, but I would've expected a fair amount of critical examination if I were you.

I am not sure why you feel that I am being defensive. I am trying to answer your questions and address your points since you seem to have misunderstood a few things.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that your goal is chilling effectiveness relative to water consumption. I'm cool with that, but it isn't my goal. Using cars as a loose analogy, you'd be asking me what my fuel efficiency was on a Porsche. It's good to know, but not the point.

Regarding bias, remember that I approached this having purchased both chillers. I wanted the fastest chiller for my setup. When I saw the coil height on the stainless, I figured that it wouldn't chill as fast and would probably use more water. JaDeD had a design that kept the coils submerged. I compared the two and the JaDeD was faster, as expected. The JaDeD chilled my 5 gallon wort down to tap temperature in about 10 minutes vs. 18+ minutes for the stainless. The JaDeD used about 60 gallons. The stainless used 84 gallons.

I would have preferred the stainless be just as fast despite the exposed coils. That way, like another poster said, I would have a forever-shiny coil that would never patina. However, that wasn't the case, and now I am selling the stainless on the for-sale sub forum. If the JaDeD were slower, I would be selling it instead. So that's my bias--I want the best equipment for my configuration.

 

[jbaysurfer]

You claimed a 20-30% improvement in chilling time but you used 30% more water. Any conclusion favoring the chiller that got more water is flawed.

I'm pretty sure that's the key information right there. Your work is helpful. Your conclusion is on extremely shaky ground.

Your typeset of the brand name "JaDeD" is brilliant. LOL!!!

 

[somekindofnick]

You claimed a 20-30% improvement in chilling time but you used 30% more water. Any conclusion favoring the chiller that got more water is flawed.

I'm pretty sure that's the key information right there. Your work is helpful. Your conclusion is on extremely shaky ground.

Your typeset of the brand name "JaDeD" is brilliant. LOL!!!

Thanks for the feedback. By the way, that's how they market their name. It's not my capitalization.

 

[JaDeDBrewing]

I really appreciate the time that went into testing and gathering data, I know that's not a small task to do tests like these. For that, thank you.

It does seem though that the results show that there is basically no difference.

Looking at your tests, the JaDed seemed to be anywhere from 2 - 4 minutes faster; it also used about 30 more gallons of water. I pay for water whereas 4 minutes of my 6-hour brew day doesn't cost me a penny. (30 gallons costs me about $0.72 so not a significant amount but there is a cost)

On top of that, I think you need to look at the cleaning aspect of stainless versus copper. You probably spent those 4 minutes cleaning the hop residue and break material out of all the coils of the JaDed as opposed to a quick hose down of the stainless chiller. Plus there will come a point where that copper will need some care.

I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think statements like saying the JaDed was "40% faster" are a bit misleading if not considered within the context. It also used "30% more water" (which is a whopping 72 cents).

In my opinion, what you've proven here is that they're basically the same and either is a suitable option depending on your personal preferences.

Maybe we are missing something, but we are not seeing where the data is showing 30 additional gallons of water used by the Hydra. Could you please point out where you are seeing this?

The cleaning for both the Hydra and the stainless chiller are going to be the same. Any hops or break material is easily washed off with a spray of the hose, or a dunk in saved chilling water. Properly stored copper will not need any additional care. If you develop any verdigris or oxide buildup, a simple boil in starsan will take care of the issue.

In our testing, the 50' 1/2" chiller took 50% longer to chill and used 28% more water than the Hydra to reach the same final temp using an unrestricted flow. We understand that there is an assumption that our data is going to be skewed in our favor or that it is done in "lab" conditions that are not able to be replicated by the average brewer. That is simply not the case and somekindofnick is very close to replicating our numbers as well, if he can get his whirlpool speed up a bit he will be right there.

 

[jammin]

Maybe we are missing something, but we are not seeing where the data is showing 30 additional gallons of water used by the Hydra. Could you please point out where you are seeing this?

The cleaning for both the Hydra and the stainless chiller are going to be the same. Any hops or break material is easily washed off with a spray of the hose, or a dunk in saved chilling water. Properly stored copper will not need any additional care. If you develop any verdigris or oxide buildup, a simple boil in starsan will take care of the issue.

In our testing, the 50' 1/2" chiller took 50% longer to chill and used 28% more water than the Hydra to reach the same final temp using an unrestricted flow. We understand that there is an assumption that our data is going to be skewed in our favor or that it is done in "lab" conditions that are not able to be replicated by the average brewer. That is simply not the case and somekindofnick is very close to replicating our numbers as well, if he can get his whirlpool speed up a bit he will be right there.

You're chillers are a gimmick. Any similar surface area, ground water temp and wort agitation is gonna yield nearly identical results. It doesn't matter how fancy you bend the pipe. Your chiller simply look like a PITA to clean.

 

[jpalarchio]

Maybe we are missing something, but we are not seeing where the data is showing 30 additional gallons of water used by the Hydra. Could you please point out where you are seeing this?

This is the OP's worksheet that I was looking at: http://e30dohc.com/wordpress/wp-con...-Chiller-Comparison-Water-Test-2-20140830.pdf

Like I said in my original post, I appreciate the time it took to perform tests like these. I also feel like comparisons communicated in percentages are a bit misleading when we're talking about minutes in the single digit range. My brew day is a good 6 hours start to finish; a product that is 5-10 minutes faster isn't going make a significant difference to me personally.

Just my 4 cents worth... ("100% more" than 2 cents)

 

[JaDeDBrewing]

You're chillers are a gimmick. Any similar surface area, ground water temp and wort agitation is gonna yield nearly identical results. It doesn't matter how fancy you bend the pipe. Your chiller simply look like a PITA to clean.

That is incorrect. You also need to consider the water flow rate of the chiller and the water volume to surface area of a chiller. The lower the water/surface area ratio, the more efficient the chiller will be. Below is an example:

1/2" (25') 5.5 minutes to chill to 10 degrees above tap water temperature using 33 gallons of water (471 sq. in. of copper)

1/4" (50') 20 minutes to chill to 10 degrees above tap water temperature using 14 gallons of water (470 sq. in. of copper)

As you can see above, the 1/4" 50' and the 1/2" 25' both have almost identical surface areas, but the 1/2" has a much faster chilling time, at the cost of water efficiency. We came up with the Hydra design after we did extensive testing and realized that we needed the efficiency of the 3/8" coils to maximize the flow rate from a standard hose spigot.

We have very consistent testing procedures and maintain a very high degree of accuracy in all of our testing. When we started manufacturing chillers, we realized very quickly, that there was a severe lack of information of how the different diameters and lengths of chillers perform and we set out to better inform anyone looking to purchase a chiller.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there are very few people who would call a 50% reduction in chilling time while using 28% less water (using our data) or 37% faster using 4% less water (using somekindofnicks data to get to 91 degrees, which is 9 degrees above tap water temp), a "gimmick". Also, it would appear that the biggest complaint about cleaning is coming from people who have never used the chiller in question. You can speculate as to the magnitude of increased cleaning difficulty, but the fact remains that it is the same as any other IC.

Not sure why you seem to be so dead set against us, but if you are simply concerned about us deceiving our customers, fear not, we have the best return policy in homebrewing. If anyone is not happy with their product or feels like we misled them as to the performance, they can return it for a full refund, including shipping charges.

We are focused on increasing the usable information available to homebrewers on a subject that is currently murky at best. We have already been able to help a large number of fellow homebrewers decrease their chilling times and save water at the same time. Some of them purchased our products, some were happy with their existing equipment after we had them try our immersion chiller optimization recommendations. Either way, we are open and honest about what will work best for them, depending on the situation.

This is the OP's worksheet that I was looking at: http://e30dohc.com/wordpress/wp-con...-Chiller-Comparison-Water-Test-2-20140830.pdf

Like I said in my original post, I appreciate the time it took to perform tests like these. I also feel like comparisons communicated in percentages are a bit misleading when we're talking about minutes in the single digit range. My brew day is a good 6 hours start to finish; a product that is 5-10 minutes faster isn't going make a significant difference to me personally.

Just my 4 cents worth... ("100% more" than 2 cents)

If you look at the data points and compare temperature to temperature, you will see that the Hydra uses less water to reach to same temperature, faster than the 50' chiller.

As with everything in home brewing, to each their own! Percentages are rather helpful in wort chilling because they are more accurately transferred across a wider range of wort volumes and tap water temperatures. Our goal with the Hydra, was to give homebrewers concerned with cleanliness, an alternative to the large plate chillers, and for that, you need to be concerned about single digit differences.

Cheers!