OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
Lets assume flow rate is the same across the board, regardless of pumping or gravity.
Interesting conversation with a Mech. Engineer at Work
- Thread starter Anthony_Lopez
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
SILVER13ACK
Active Member
A copper tube enclosed in PVC pipe.
***NOT***
Sticking an IC in a bucket of ice water. Thats called 'sticking an IC in a bucket of ice water'.
A tube in shell is just that...an tube in a shell with counter flowing liquids. The CFC that you speak of and that everyone uses can also be classified as a tube in shell. Or to be more precise, a tube in tube. But its the same exact principle.
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
its actually not the same principle.
A tube in shell would be in an enclosed pipe, however there is no way for the counterflowing liquids to be controlled. Yes, you can have water going in the bottom of the shell and out the top of the shell while the wort flows through the tube from the top to the bottom output, you are not forcing a counter-flow exchange across the entire surface area of the tube. This "tube in shell" would be a hybrid chiller, which is less efficient.
Water pressure ensures that you are getting a full counter-flowing heat exchange inside a CFC.
A tube in shell would be in an enclosed pipe, however there is no way for the counterflowing liquids to be controlled. Yes, you can have water going in the bottom of the shell and out the top of the shell while the wort flows through the tube from the top to the bottom output, you are not forcing a counter-flow exchange across the entire surface area of the tube. This "tube in shell" would be a hybrid chiller, which is less efficient.
Water pressure ensures that you are getting a full counter-flowing heat exchange inside a CFC.
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
SILVER13ACK
Active Member
It is the same principle. There are several differnent types of tube in shell.
If you have a straight tube in a straight PVC pipe, then you have the exact same thing as a 'tube in tube'. It doesn't matter if its in a coil or if you have a 25' long piece of PVC with a 25' piece of copper tubing running inside of it.
You can also have a manifold of straight pipes running inside the tube, etc etc. It is still a CFC. I didn't say it was more or less efficient, but it follows the same principle. With every design, there are variables such as flow rate, pressure, etc...but it's still the same principle.
That's an interesting design. Did you calculate to see if you have greater surface area by having a bunch of straight tubes as opposed to a single coil within that "shell"? What are the dimensions of that system (more specifically the copper on the inside and the ID of the shell itself)?
SILVER13ACK
Active Member
Take a Chillus Convolutus, run the wort in the outer tube, cooling liquid in the inner tube(running the opposite way), and stick the whole think in a PVC pipe with a small gap around the convolutus, and run water in the opposite direction of the wort. Put a solid PVC pipe in the middle of the convolutus so water isnt wasted doing nothing in the middle. Also, that would increase water pressure.
I bet you $10 that it's more efficient than just using the convolutus in the normal way. You can probably cut the chiller down 33% and still get the same cooling efficiency(just a random guess, I have no idea). Yes, I know it would not be as efficient as if you had 3 closely coupled tubes, but it's more efficient than just the chiller by itself, probably cheaper and easier to make than using 3 tubes. But I dont know.
I bet you $10 that it's more efficient than just using the convolutus in the normal way. You can probably cut the chiller down 33% and still get the same cooling efficiency(just a random guess, I have no idea). Yes, I know it would not be as efficient as if you had 3 closely coupled tubes, but it's more efficient than just the chiller by itself, probably cheaper and easier to make than using 3 tubes. But I dont know.
blacklab
Well-Known Member
Is this really necessary given that your typical CFC or plate chiller can take the wort from boiling to 75-80 ish in one pass(given that the cooling water is proper temp)?
Who cares?
Who cares?
This is how mankind progresses. It may be a little insignificant experiment to some people, but experimenting and pushing the limits is why we're all typing on a computers right now. If you don't care it's better to not respond. I personally (as well as others I'm sure) find things like this very interesting.
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
I completely agree JMD... comments like "who cares" kind of negate my entire career...
Brew-Happy
Well-Known Member
When I read about CFC chillers I can't help but think of this idea. Basically it reduces the cross-sectional distance in one direction, exposing the wort equally to the cooling water. Therefore a lower thermal gradient across the wort as it flows.
This is similar to your water/wort/water idea but simplifying the design.
I added the sinusoidal curves to cause turbulence and hopefully reduce laminar flow issues.
The original tubing would have regular round ends, just crimped midsection. I had even thought about making a U so that the length of the chiller would be ~ 1/2 as long.
I like these geek debates on how build a better mouse trap!! Keep it up
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
here we go!
That would work well in a tube in shell design I'd bet...
That would work well in a tube in shell design I'd bet...
When I read about CFC chillers I can't help but think of this idea. Basically it reduces the cross-sectional distance in one direction, exposing the wort equally to the cooling water. Therefore a lower thermal gradient across the wort as it flows.
This is similar to your water/wort/water idea but simplifying the design.
I added the sinusoidal curves to cause turbulence and hopefully reduce laminar flow issues.
The original tubing would have regular round ends, just crimped midsection. I had even thought about making a U so that the length of the chiller would be ~ 1/2 as long.
I like these geek debates on how build a better mouse trap!! Keep it up
Thats a nice practicle idea. Where would you get the "coil" from? Is that something that could be bought off the shelf? I think one thing that needs to remain the same is the ability to go to home depot (or maybe some internet source) to purchase all of your materials. Nothing should be specially made.
Also, I would try to keep it gravity fed. Looks like you might need a pump for that. With a little tweaking that could be the new CFC we're looking for.
I would go right for option #2. Not only does the sinusoidal curve create turbulance, but it increases the amount of surface area within the chiller. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" - Now go do the complete opposite!
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
this would work well in the closed pipe setting, but I'll be damned if I tried to put that through a hose...
Brew-Happy
Well-Known Member
I wasn't thinking of using anything special with this. I would take a coil of tubing and straighten it out, then crimp/flatten the midsection of the tubing. It would probably be best to fill the tubing with sand to prevent crushing. If you happen to have a friend with a great machine shop, they would have a rolling press to flatten something such as this. I don't have such a friend, but I would try to find one. 
As far as making the sinusoidal wave, I would try to bend the flattened tubing over a 1-2" piece of metal pipe. This would take some practice.
Another thought would be to build a manifold with multiple connections so that several of these sections could be used in parallel. Say, 1port to 4. The increased internal volume would help to shorten the CFC. Of course, this would require a wider section of PVC pipe, say 6-8" in diameter.
As far as making the sinusoidal wave, I would try to bend the flattened tubing over a 1-2" piece of metal pipe. This would take some practice.
Another thought would be to build a manifold with multiple connections so that several of these sections could be used in parallel. Say, 1port to 4. The increased internal volume would help to shorten the CFC. Of course, this would require a wider section of PVC pipe, say 6-8" in diameter.
blacklab
Well-Known Member
didn't mean to tip over your apple cart, sally.
Please repost in the cider forum
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
I love the ignorant, uninformed comments you find on the internet... Damn Al Gore for inventing it in the first place...
If you have anything worth while to post, this is a great discussion we have going on here. For those of you that are happy with what you have, I think thats great. My CFC is working great for me as well. No need to rain on someone elses "parade"
Ridemywideglide
Well-Known Member
I'd have to kindly disagree with you too.. My first car, 1980 citation, would get 27mpg. Now a 2009 corsica with the same motor (3.0 V6) get 27mpg...??
Where's the benefit of 28 years of R&D? Cars are getting no better mileage now than they were in the 80's, it just costs more so we think about it more.
As to the chiller (CFC or not) You can only get as cold as the source water no matter what design or how long or how many tubes you run it through.
Please read the prior posts, the discussion is not whether you can "magically" cool water to below the temperature of the source, it's how you can cool it to that temperature more efficiently.
If your numbers are correct, could you also tell me the Horsepower/torque for both models? I have a hunch that the 2009 corsica has a bit more power.
The car is one example, if you'd rather have a closed mind about these types of things, then go for it. I for one would rather improve than conform.
My reaction to the design was that it's much easier and cheaper to build a longer single core design to acheive the same effect as a shorter dual core design. Yes, you'd probably get cooler in a shorter coil, but building the end caps will be a bit more complicated and you have the added cost of a larger outer copper coil also. It's getting to the point where an Ebay plate chiller would be cheaper and much more efficient.
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
We have never stated that we wanted to get the wort cooler than the "cooling" liquid. We are just trying to push the envelope as far as cooling efficiency as well as trying to discuss a topic that many are interested in.
As far as a Chevy Citation, the only information I could find is on a 1985 Citation II with the 6 cylinder. It got 18 city/24 highway.
SILVER13ACK
Active Member
I don't get it. You like that design, but every tube in shell design that I recommend you shoot it down like a maimed horse.
If you bend the tube into a U shape, then you have a multi-pass heat exchanger. Bend it into and S and you have another pass.
If you are going to look at tube-in-shell designs then you can go with something like this... errr, nevermind, ASCII art isn't working, and I cant do a pic now.
Basically you have a shell with dampers in it to direct flow across the pipes. Then you have your pipes either coiled or in an S shape(More passes the better). I still don't think it's as efficient for a homebrewer as far as temperature decreases and water usage goes. But maybe you can use much less copper and end up with a cheaper overall design.
Shell and tube heat exchanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heat exchanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ridemywideglide
Well-Known Member
I wasn't being a smartass or closed minded, and I did read the whole thread.
I would seem the NY'r in you has come out.
The whole point of this forum is to discuss better ways of making beer. If you go into a discussion claiming that 28 years of R&D was a waste of time & money, then prove it.
Don't assume just because I'm from NY I'm a typical "New Yorker". We're trying to have an interesting discussion, and you are just trying to prove why we're wrong instead of adding anything to our conversation.
Don't assume just because I'm from NY I'm a typical "New Yorker". We're trying to have an interesting discussion, and you are just trying to prove why we're wrong instead of adding anything to our conversation.
Ridemywideglide
Well-Known Member
You don't have to explain the point of this forum or thread, I understand the principle. I also didn't say 28 years of R&D was a waste of time. I DID state that we are getting no better mileage based on my experience and knowledge of then vs. now mileage statements. You want to know the horsepower etc. of said models here you go;
1981 Chevy 60* v6 found in Citation x-11
170.87ci, 135hp/165#'s tq. Works out to .78hp per cubic inch.
1993 Camaro v6 (but now 3.4 litre)
207.48ci, 160hp/tq not listed. Works out to .77hp per cubic inch.
Later 2005-2008 V6 models (lumina, malibu, etc) do slightly better, but with larger engines as well.
3.4litre/207ci comes out to .86hp/ci - 3.8litre/231ci comes out to .86hp.ci
So it would seem pretty linear to me as far as R&D goes. Making more power is a byproduct of making a larger motor. If I swing a larger hammer, I can hit harder with same input force.
I'm going to make a pretty reasonable assertion that the mileage factor doesn't change a whole lot in 20-25 years. 18-24 (as posted above) seems to be the mean average I found as well with google.
I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison.
I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people.
Hopefully the original topic will resume.
Brad
1981 Chevy 60* v6 found in Citation x-11
170.87ci, 135hp/165#'s tq. Works out to .78hp per cubic inch.
1993 Camaro v6 (but now 3.4 litre)
207.48ci, 160hp/tq not listed. Works out to .77hp per cubic inch.
Later 2005-2008 V6 models (lumina, malibu, etc) do slightly better, but with larger engines as well.
3.4litre/207ci comes out to .86hp/ci - 3.8litre/231ci comes out to .86hp.ci
So it would seem pretty linear to me as far as R&D goes. Making more power is a byproduct of making a larger motor. If I swing a larger hammer, I can hit harder with same input force.
I'm going to make a pretty reasonable assertion that the mileage factor doesn't change a whole lot in 20-25 years. 18-24 (as posted above) seems to be the mean average I found as well with google.
I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison.
I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people.
Hopefully the original topic will resume.
Brad
SILVER13ACK
Active Member
Check the weight of each of those cars. More than likely the cars got heavier and heavier due to safety regulations = worse MPG.
Also, we now have ethanol in almost all of our fuel and that kills power and MPGs.
"Making more power is a byproduct of making a larger motor. If I swing a larger hammer, I can hit harder with same input force."
- The whole point I am trying to make is if you continue to think this way, we'll never have the desire to improve a current design.
"I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison."
- Maybe so, instead of talking about the OP's design, people were talking about why it was a stupid idea. Perhaps I jumped down your throat assuming you were like the others, if so please accept my apology. I am not here to make enemies, I'm here to talk about homebrew and everything to do with it.
"I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people."
- I don't presume anyone to be an idiot, I also don't care for people who are quick to knock other's ideas, no matter how "stupid" they sound. Like I said, maybe I was quick to judge, but I don't find "where's the benefit of 28 years R&D" as positive response.
"Hopefully the original topic will resume."
-Ditto
- The whole point I am trying to make is if you continue to think this way, we'll never have the desire to improve a current design.
"I will didn't assume you as a typical NY'r, you acted like one. And twice now.
I even used the word "kindly" in my first post quoting you. My mistake.
You quickly jump and react like I was personally attacking YOU. When I simply disputed your basis for comparison."
- Maybe so, instead of talking about the OP's design, people were talking about why it was a stupid idea. Perhaps I jumped down your throat assuming you were like the others, if so please accept my apology. I am not here to make enemies, I'm here to talk about homebrew and everything to do with it.
"I have no idea what heat transfer or drag coefficients need to be considered, but I'm not a complete idiot either and don't really appreciate you presuming that I am. Maybe you should push that chip off your shoulder before you reply to people."
- I don't presume anyone to be an idiot, I also don't care for people who are quick to knock other's ideas, no matter how "stupid" they sound. Like I said, maybe I was quick to judge, but I don't find "where's the benefit of 28 years R&D" as positive response.
"Hopefully the original topic will resume."
-Ditto
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
Sweet Jesus... someones gonna scorch the grains with all these flames... Lets try to keep this conversation/discussion within the realm of my intent. If not, I'll just ask for it to be locked and deleted. I can do my own experiments with these HEX designs, I just thought it would be nice to let everyone in on what we have been talking about at work.
Your intentions are good but you haven't really shown anything yet, just proposed. It's going to be damned tough to come up with a more efficient design than a CFC for the time and money and skill level to build it. I'm all for new designs and better "stuff", but I also know when to put my efforts into a project and when the laws of diminishing returns takes over. More efficient is one thing, more efficient and cheaper is a whole new ballgame.
OP
OP
Anthony_Lopez
Well-Known Member
I completely agree... Projects are easy to build on paper, but once you compile a parts list, things grow exponentially.
Similar threads
