Line Cleaning - Let's talk options

[WildGingerBrewing]

Hah! JohnnyO?



I use Accuflex Bev-Seal Ultra line, but the EJ Silver is a good product as well. And yes, I can absolutely taste a difference, but only if the beer has been sitting in the line for an hour or longer. Before I found barrier tubing I'd simply dump the first ~4oz from each tap at the start of every drinking session.

If you want to do a blind taste test yourself, split the same beer into 2 kegs, and put barrier tubing on one and vinyl on the other. Pour a few oz through each to fill the lines. Let sit 24hrs, pour 4-6oz from each, and see if you can taste (and even smell) the difference.

Hahah

Thought I'd check in.

As you should

Me too! This is wild!

Ha

I had a $20 bill. I wanted 2 $10's. I threw the $20 in the trash because it was easier than getting change.

This

I guess this just comes down to how much your time is worth to you, or put another way how lazy you are. I won't drive across town to save a couple of bucks on gas but I drive a small car. If I had a 60 gal tank and I could save $15 a week, sure.



I mean think of it this way. A one tap or two tap guy could spend $10 - $20 a year and take care of his lines in 5 minutes. Or he could spend that much in cleaner a year and spend 30 minutes. I mean we're not talking about the cost of a pump and fittings and adapters either. Sure there's cheap stuff but it adds up. If you spend $50 on that stuff, it's a 5 year payout. That sucks! If you bought a $500 pump system instead of building your own, that's a 50 year payout. Hell, what's $500 bucks invested in 50 years, lol. What if the pump goes bad and you need to replace it in 3 years. I'm just saying there are situations where it is better to replace your lines. Better for everyone, no. Better for all situations, no. But for some, yes.

I figured my time once. Came to $900/hr.

 

[TXCrash]

Hahah




As you should



Ha



This


I figured my time once. Came to $900/hr.

Your time isn't worth what you pay...

 

[soccerdad]

Your time isn't worth what you pay...

assuming 5 gallons in 4 hours .. $1800 a case for beer

THIS, my friends, is the true appeal of homebrewing

 

[WildGingerBrewing]

Your time isn't worth what you pay...

Uh-huh. Stoopid

assuming 5 gallons in 4 hours .. $1800 a case for beer



THIS, my friends, is the true appeal of homebrewing

See! Soccerdad gets it.

 

[Auger]

That would cost $10 a year to replace every other month as you say. Still faster, still no buying of chemicals, still to water or electricity used.

So the unnecessary manufacture of hundreds of feet of tubing being produced for you every year, to be used for 2 weeks then trashed, requires no chemicals, no water, no electricity. Got it.

I also love how everyone that is complaining about vinyl line leaching flavors into the beer doesn't care about the oils and lubricants in cheap pond pumps.

I don't know what you're on about with these evil oils and lubricants in pond and aquarium pumps. Having been an avid aquarist for even longer than I've been a homebrewer, I can assure you that unless you're buying really cheap, bottom of the barrel knockoff pumps not meant for anything containing live animals (maybe cheap sump pumps? I don't even know), pond pumps and aquarium pumps are oilless. When I was running a reef tank, I had orders of magnitude more money tied up in the tank livestock than I do in any batch of beer, and hell if I'd be trusting that to a pump containing any kind of lubricant. I'd be interested in seeing what pond pumps you're finding that are lubricated on the wet side.

 

[soccerdad]

... lubricated on the wet side

You guys keep up the sex talk and this thread will surely get locked

 

[hunter_le five]

My time is priceless.

 

[m00ps]

My time is priceless.

Exhibit A:

 

[m00ps]

 

[fishfilet]

So the unnecessary manufacture of hundreds of feet of tubing being produced for you every year, to be used for 2 weeks then trashed, requires no chemicals, no water, no electricity. Got it.



I don't know what you're on about with these evil oils and lubricants in pond and aquarium pumps. Having been an avid aquarist for even longer than I've been a homebrewer, I can assure you that unless you're buying really cheap, bottom of the barrel knockoff pumps not meant for anything containing live animals (maybe cheap sump pumps? I don't even know), pond pumps and aquarium pumps are oilless. When I was running a reef tank, I had orders of magnitude more money tied up in the tank livestock than I do in any batch of beer, and hell if I'd be trusting that to a pump containing any kind of lubricant. I'd be interested in seeing what pond pumps you're finding that are lubricated on the wet side.

Whether it's unnecessary or not is opinion. If you go the trash it route you could say the manufacture of pumps, chemicals, and extra fittings in unnecessary. I didn't say it doesn't take water, electricity, or chemicals to manufacture the line, lol. I don't have to use water, electricity, or chemicals to clean the line, get it? You do know it takes all those resources to manufacture chemicals and the bottles they are packaged in right? Same goes for pumps and any other equipment. Oh, what about transportation. They all use it just like beer line.

As far as the pump thing goes, the pond pump I mentioned in the OP is an example. Pull the impeller, it's coated in an oily lubricant. In fact, I have never used an impeller pump that wasn't this way. Not that I've used every pump out there.

 

[Homercidal]

Whether it's unnecessary or not is opinion. If you go the trash it route you could say the manufacture of pumps, chemicals, and extra fittings in unnecessary. I didn't say it doesn't take water, electricity, or chemicals to manufacture the line, lol. I don't have to use water, electricity, or chemicals to clean the line, get it? You do know it takes all those resources to manufacture chemicals and the bottles they are packaged in right? Same goes for pumps and any other equipment. Oh, what about transportation. They all use it just like beer line.

As far as the pump thing goes, the pond pump I mentioned in the OP is an example. Pull the impeller, it's coated in an oily lubricant. In fact, I have never used an impeller pump that wasn't this way. Not that I've used every pump out there.

So what you're saying is that every one of the march style pumps we use for brewing has a bunch of oily lubrication on the impeller? Aren't they basically the same design as the Harbor Freight pumps?

I don't recall seeing anything like that in my March Pump. I'll have to take apart my HF pond pump and see what it looks like inside.

 

[fishfilet]

So what you're saying is that every one of the march style pumps we use for brewing has a bunch of oily lubrication on the impeller? Aren't they basically the same design as the Harbor Freight pumps?

I don't recall seeing anything like that in my March Pump. I'll have to take apart my HF pond pump and see what it looks like inside.

Did I say that? Don't think so. Are they the same? I don't know. I doubt it. Aren't those diaphragm pumps? I've never had one.

 

[TXCrash]

I might have said what I might not have said but only if I didn't say it.

 

[TXCrash]

I'm going to start buying a new car every week. That way I won't ever have to buy gas.

 

[jddevinn]

...

Next, I decided to build a recirculating pump system. I think lot's of us end up here. It seems a natural progression. There are a several YouTube videos on how to build one of these systems. There are several threads on this forum with a few custom builds as well. What I will say is simply this. As far as I have seen them, these are all inadequate. The pumps used just don't deliver the flow rates needed. Heck, the hand pumps give you a better flow rate than you'll get from one of these cheap pond pumps. Pond pumps are also not generally food safe. If you take the impeller out, you'll see that it is coated with a lubricant. Do you want this in your beer lines?

So how do you get a recirculating system that will clean your lines right? You need to achieve a flow rate of 2 gallons per minute when recirculating your cleaning solution. This flow rate is twice the one gallon per minute flow that a system should be delivering beer. Achieving this flow rate is not as easy a task as it would sound. Most pumps are marketed with a GPH or Gallons per hour metric. The problem with this is that it does not indicate the actual flow rates you can obtain. Factors that impact your actual flow rates are line diameter, line length, and lifting height. These factors come together to give you a meaningful metric that you can use. This metric is known as feet of head.

Feet of head is what you need to know, not gallons per hour. You first need to calculate how man feet of head your system needs and then find a pump that is capable of delivering such. So how do you calculate feet of head? Well, we don't have time to get into that. Just Google, pump head calculator, total head calculator, etc.

What I found is that the first pump that I used, a commonly recommended eco-something was simply not up to the task. The pump is rated at 396 gallons per hour. However, I got nothing but a trickle out of it through 8 feet of 3/16" beer line. The problem, the pump is only capable of 6.5 feet of head.

Let's say your trying to clean 5' of 3/16" ID line. That's pretty standard. This task would require about 60' of head! If you have several taps, and you want to clean your lines all at the same time, you're in for a big surprise. 10' of 3/16" would require 120' of head. Good luck finding a pump that's capable of that at an economical price.

My last recirculating system consisted of a $65 Shurflo pump. This pump is NSF listed, so it's food safe. I used NSF listed drinking water hose so as not to impart any flavors into the system. This pump is capable of 100' of head. So it works great at delivering 2 gallons per minute to about 8' feet of 3/16" line. Still, if I want to clean multiple lines at once this just doesn't cut it.

So here is a solution that some of you may want to try. Use larger ID beer line. Try 1/4" or even 3/8" beer line. There is so little restriction that you can get fantastic flow rates even through long lengths of line. Cleaning long or multiple lengths of lines becomes very easy. As an example, 5' of 3/16" line would need 61' of head pressure. 5' of 3/8" line would only need 2' of head pressure! Your cheap pond pump shouldn't have a problem with that. By way of another example, a 100' foot capable pump could pump 2 gallons per minute through about 8' of 3/16" line. The same pump could pump 2 gallons per minute through about 230' of 3/8" line.

Now I know what you're thinking. You can't use larger ID beer line without creating a firehose at the faucet. Sure this is great for cleaning beer lines, but it also fills a pint glass full of nothing but foam in under 1 second. Well here is the trick. Use a flow control faucet or put an inline valve before the faucet. I can vouch for this method. It works fantastic. You can use 3/8" ID line even at 3' if you want. Then adjust the flow at the faucet for the perfect amount of head. Long lines, multiple lines, it doesn't matter. There won't be an issue.

Ok this thread annoyed me for some reason

There are different quality beer lines https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=60380. I would hate to calculate the cost to replace the lines on my 10 taps.

I see that you have a "Google Engineer" degree there:

Let's say your trying to clean 5' of 3/16" ID line. That's pretty standard. This task would require about 60' of head!

If you are requiring 60' of head (26psi) then you would also require a 26psi serving pressure to move your beer on a 5' line. Does that sound right to you? <(ignore that, fast typing slow thinking as del P is dependent on velocity) No, it's not because the often quoted 3psi/foot resistance is wrong. See below calculation for pressure drop in 5' of 3/16" line. 8.8psi is 20ft head. Easily achievable at way above 2gpm flow with this cheap pump from an online popular retailer. This pump would have a very very slow flow at 60' of head...... I HAVE it and I use it at several gallons a minute (in case you don't understand math)

Use larger ID beer line. Try 1/4" or even 3/8" beer line. There is so little restriction that you can get fantastic flow rates even through long lengths of line. Cleaning long or multiple lengths of lines becomes very easy. As an example, 5' of 3/16" line would need 61' of head pressure. 5' of 3/8" line would only need 2' of head pressure!

Wrong on the math again. We WANT restriction in ber lines. Using a correct calculator your looking at 50+ foot of line for 1/4" beer line.

 

[hunter_le five]

I'm going to start buying a new car every week. That way I won't ever have to buy gas.

I'm buying a new house so me and wife will stop fighting about whose turn it is to sweep the floor here in the rental.

 

[jddevinn]

Exhibit A:

Yep all our time is valuable..... Toby is my cat, get too drunk at the house and the cat may marry you off.


As a side note, I didn't want to change the litter so I went this morning and got a new house. Movers are coming in the morning so no brewing for a while.

 

[fishfilet]

If you are requiring 60' of head (26psi) then you would also require a 26psi serving pressure to move your beer.

No it does not. The 60' of head is for pushing cleaning solution through at 2 gallons per minute. It's quite a debate in this thread whether that flow rate is required. However as flow rate increases, required head increases exponentialy. To deliver beer at 1 gallon per minute (again not set in stone) the same set up would only require 17' of head or about 7 psi as you like to put it. Do you understand that math?

Oh and I did mention that the eco pump was only 6.5' of head capable (2.8 psi). So it wouldn't be able to deliver at 1 gallon per minute either.

Using a correct calculator your looking at 50+ foot of line for 1/4" beer line.

Nope, you are wrong again. It seems you missed the part about using a flow control faucet if using larger diameter line. When using this type of faucet or simply using a valve before the faucet (cheaper) you forget about beer line length and ID to a very large degree. It's handled at the valve.

 

[IslandLizard]

The OP is obviously trolling:
Signs up on HBT and starts a thread with a controversial argument. See who's biting...

If he claims buying new dispensing line every 2 weeks is his solution to a cleaning problem that doesn't exist, so be it.

Unsubscribed!

 

[jddevinn]

No it does not. The 60' of head is for pushing cleaning solution through at 2 gallons per minute. It's quite a debate in this thread whether that flow rate is required. However as flow rate increases, required head increases exponentialy. To deliver beer at 1 gallon per minute (again not set in stone) the same set up would only require 17' of head or about 7 psi as you like to put it. Do you understand that math?

Oh and I did mention that that eco pump was only 6.5' of head capable (2.8 psi). So it wouldn't be able to deliver at 1 gallon per minute either.

yea yea you're right there about the flow rate effect, I did that quickly and really didn't think you would understand the equation. Why do you get 60' of head? What are you using to calc that? Cause it's not what you get with a modified bernoulli darcy equation.

Nope, you are wrong again. It seems you missed the part about using a flow control faucet if using larger diameter line. When using this type of faucet or simply using a valve before the faucet (cheaper) you forget about beer line length and ID to a very large degree. It's handled at the valve.

Oh, yea. Anyone want (10) free Perlick 630's? You know it's time to clean them anyway and I don't have time for that, might as well buy flow controls this time.

 

[jddevinn]

The OP is obviously trolling:
Signs up on HBT and starts a thread with a controversial argument. See who's biting...

If he claims buying new dispensing line every 2 weeks is his solution to a cleaning problem that doesn't exist, so be it.

Unsubscribed!

Wait a minute here ipe: OP is vender trying to sell us beer line without being a registered vendor

 

[fishfilet]

yea yea you're right there about the flow rate effect, I did that quickly and really didn't think you would understand the equation. Why do you get 60' of head? What are you using to calc that? Cause it's not what you get with a modified bernoulli darcy equation.

I mostly use the calculator mentioned earlier. It seems very accurate to me as I have put the calculations to the test with my equipment, timing the flow rates with a stopwatch. It does not have inputs for line restriction though.

Oh, yea. Anyone want (10) free Perlick 630's? You know it's time to clean them anyway and I don't have time for that, might as well buy flow controls this time.

Believe me, I know they are expensive. I would not buy 10 of them without getting a divorce, lol. As mentioned an inline valve would be cheaper. I know that idea is not for everyone. It was just an option and for those of us with just one faucet to replace or those just starting out, they may not have to replace anything as they are buying new.

 

[fishfilet]

Wait a minute here ipe: OP is vender trying to sell us beer line without being a registered vendor

Not a vendor, lol. I even took great care not to mention any brands, give any links to stores, etc. That actually seemed to make some people mad.

And common, I'm a troll, really. I am a new member. Thanks for the warm invite. You can see from my one tap setup that I'm just starting. I had some ideas I wanted to share. I don't care how many post you have, you all started at 1.

 

[jleiii]

There's a lot of interesting and good information here, but a pretty tough crowd!
I fall into the casual kegging category as I have no beer on tap more often than I do simply because I don't brew often enough. The use it and throw it away method would be no big deal for me, but I do clean my lines, and kegs, as soon as it kicks. I'm very unimpressed with the results however. Before I kegged my first beer I did a lot of research so I would be properly prepared, plus that's my nature.
One thing that I did read is that the beer lines should NEVER be used without first cleaning them with PBW. That alone pretty much kills the use it and throw it away method. I did not see a single person mention this here though. I don't recall where I read that as it's been a couple years, sorry.
My experience with cleaning has not been great either. I use my Marks Keg Cleaner pump (GPH/PSI/head unknown), hot tap water and PBW. My lines are about 6 feet long and 1/4" ID. I recirculate the solution for an hour plus (overnight at least once), and in the end they don't look ANY cleaner. They still are hazy compared to the CO2 lines. If I rub the inside with a 'cotton swab' that haze wipes right off and they are clear again. I've considered pushing a piece of cloth through them with a rod, but I don't have a 6 foot rod handy. The flow through is pretty substantial as it will shoot at least a couple feet into the air. You can probably guess why I know that.....
The tubing is high quality food grade tubing, and might even be the same as has been mentioned here. The name looks really familiar, but it's home and I'm not, so I can't verify.
So, all you cleaners - do your lines get visibly clean, or do you just assume they are clean?

 

[fishfilet]

What are you using to calc that? Cause it's not what you get with a modified bernoulli darcy equation.

Again I don't know, but I was wondering if you may be able to help with the whole 2 gallons per minute thing.

My thinking is that this recommendation is based on wanting to have the tube fully saturated. For instance, if the flow rate is coming out a trickle, then not all of the tubes perimeter is in contact with cleaning solution.

The recommendation may be based on some assumptions such as length of the line, line ID, etc. We don't know what these are. So how would we calculate the required flow rate to make sure that cleaning solution is in contact with 100% of the tubing perimeter?

I thought Manning's Equation could be used, but I don't know exactly how to apply that here. Any ideas?

 

[fishfilet]

For anyone interested, here is a video example of how you can use the flow control faucet or similar device. This was done using about 5' if 3/8" line. The first pour is wide open like a normal faucet. The second pour is using the control valve. Once you set the flow rate, you can just leave it there. Unless you change your CO2 PSI setting or the ID or length of your line, you don't need to mess with it. This was a commercial keg from a local brewery.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-xvQPFXx6vedGhCZ05kSEluYkk/view?usp=sharing

 

[h22lude]

One thing that I did read is that the beer lines should NEVER be used without first cleaning them with PBW. That alone pretty much kills the use it and throw it away method. I did not see a single person mention this here though.

Exactly what I was going to say. You should clean anything new.

 

[richl025]

You have a lot of well researched data but you start with an unfounded assumption - that you need to have continuous flow through your lines to clean them. And where did you get the 2 gall per minute figure? Did you just pull it out of thin air?

I clean my lines every few kegs by running PBW through them with a hand pump, followed by some warm tap water. I run maybe 2-3 liters of each.

I've never had an off flavor from gunky beer lines.

 

[fishfilet]

You have a lot of well researched data but you start with an unfounded assumption - that you need to have continuous flow through your lines to clean them. And where did you get the 2 gall per minute figure? Did you just pull it out of thin air?

I clean my lines every few kegs by running PBW through them with a hand pump, followed by some warm tap water. I run maybe 2-3 liters of each.

I've never had an off flavor from gunky beer lines.

I don't think you need continuous flow. Some people let cleaner just sit. I just have read several places that circulation cleaning is far better. In fact, I think I have seen things like circulation is 80x better or 200x better. Now where does that come from? I don't know. I would like to know where that came from as well. The 2 gallons per minute thing is also recommended from several sources one of which I gave.

I think the 2 gallons per minute recommendation is to try and make sure that all of the lines surface area is in contact with cleaner. I would be interested to know how to calculate required flow rate based on the tubing in use. It may also be that a certain amount of current is desired to get a good cleaning. I don't know if anyone would disagree that moving water cleans better than sitting watter. Then again some people just like to disagree.

 

[jddevinn]

As long as you have a decent flow the lines will be full. The faucet at the end should be the largest pressure drop in the system. I've had no issues using the pump I use for all my cleaning. I don't think this requires in depth discussion.... but throwing away lines twice a month and replacing with new "uncleaned" lines is just ridiculous.

I'll probably kick a keg in the next couple days, if anyone is really concerned i can time the amount it takes me to push 5 gallons through the system (like I do when I rinse out the cleaner)..... I'll tell you it's not long, I don't have time to walk away and do anything else.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Then again some people just like to disagree.

Do not!

 

[jddevinn]

https://www.kegworks.com/heavy-duty-draft-beer-line-cleaning-pump This beer line cleaning pump is rated at 1.7 GPM MAX Flow


Maybe we need to get one of these hygene meters http://www.beveragefactory.com/draftbeer/accessories/micromatic/atp-100.shtml

BLC instructions http://www.micromatic.com/templates/static/images/1086/Cleaning_Instructions.pdf I see no flow rate requirement

 

[beernbourbon]

I might have said what I might not have said but only if I didn't say it.

But if you did say it, but it's not what you meant.

Not a vendor, lol. I even took great care not to mention any brands, give any links to stores, etc. That actually seemed to make some people mad.



And common, I'm a troll, really. I am a new member. Thanks for the warm invite. You can see from my one tap setup that I'm just starting. I had some ideas I wanted to share. I don't care how many post you have, you all started at 1.

Nope, pretty normal to post a link for 'hey look what I found'. Oh wait, you already knew that based on the amount of information on this forum that you've already read, as clearly evidenced by restating information that is readily available here, in multiple threads. (To clarify, that is what we call sarcasm. It's obvious you haven't read squat around here except your own "facts")

Again I don't know, but I was wondering if you may be able to help with the whole 2 gallons per minute thing.

So how would we calculate the required flow rate to make sure that cleaning solution is in contact with 100% of the tubing perimeter?

I thought Manning's Equation could be used, but I don't know exactly how to apply that here. Any ideas?

Wait, wait, wait, Mr. Trollman. You post your information obtained via your google engineering degree (nice one, jddevinn, had to steal it), and get all uppity when someone asks you to explain yourself or post your research (as most here are more than willing to do, they aren't afraid of someone scrutinizing their work), and you say 'if you don't understand the math, I'm not going to teach you' (which I do, nice response in a teaching/learning forum, btw. I hope to God you aren't in a supervisory position), but NOW, when the facts are slapped in your face, YOU want to be taught by someone that clearly blows you out of the water with a real, honest to goodness piece of real degree obtained knowledge.
And you wonder why your welcome wasn't as warm as your safe place has taught you it should be.

Unless you change your CO2 PSI setting or the ID or length of your line, you don't need to mess with it. This was a commercial keg from a local brewery.

Basically I can just set it and forget it. Unless I change something. [emoji57]
Again with the commercial applications, which don't apply to HOME BREWERS.

I don't think you need continuous flow. Some people let cleaner just sit. I just have read several places that circulation cleaning is far better. In fact, I think I have seen things like circulation is 80x better or 200x better. Now where does that come from? I don't know. I would like to know where that came from as well. The 2 gallons per minute thing is also recommended from several sources one of which I gave.



I think the 2 gallons per minute recommendation is to try and make sure that all of the lines surface area is in contact with cleaner. I would be interested to know how to calculate required flow rate based on the tubing in use. It may also be that a certain amount of current is desired to get a good cleaning. I don't know if anyone would disagree that moving water cleans better than sitting watter. Then again some people just like to disagree.

PBW clearly states that it is a CIP designed compound, i.e. static, not moving.
Yes, we will disagree when you step in to a place and expect your information to be accepted without question. Unrealistic at best, arrogant more likely.
I get you are excited about this new venture you find yourself embarking upon, however, it would be in your best interest to simply spend more time reading what you find here in these forums, much of which is posted by numerous highly educated real engineers, with a metric **** ton of experience in very related fields, that are extremely happy to teach you more than you could ever imagine possible, but only if you are a willing student.
Or more succinctly, get in, sit down, shut up, read and take notes. Or don't, and just go away.

 

[Auger]

In fact, I think I have seen things like circulation is 80x better or 200x better. Now where does that come from? I don't know. I would like to know where that came from as well. T

who said that, I dunno, people are sayng, I tell you, many many people are saying it, is it true, i don't know, but people are saying it...

 

[TXCrash]

I just clean my lines with CO2. It forms a protective blanket...

Mention of trump is what killed it?

Well, it has to do with the protective blanket caused by all the CO2 that's spouted.

 

[JuanMoore]

Wait a minute here ipe: OP is vender trying to sell us beer line without being a registered vendor

Hah!

I mostly use the calculator mentioned earlier. It seems very accurate to me as I have put the calculations to the test with my equipment, timing the flow rates with a stopwatch. It does not have inputs for line restriction though.

Line restriction is a dependent variable, so there's no easy way to use that as an input. I think what you were getting at though is that instead of having an input for relative pipe roughness it just has generic pipe type options. This makes it hardly applicable considering the difference that small changes in relative pipe roughness can have on line restriction, and the variability in relative roughness between different tubing materials.

Again I don't know, but I was wondering if you may be able to help with the whole 2 gallons per minute thing.

My thinking is that this recommendation is based on wanting to have the tube fully saturated. For instance, if the flow rate is coming out a trickle, then not all of the tubes perimeter is in contact with cleaning solution.

The recommendation may be based on some assumptions such as length of the line, line ID, etc. We don't know what these are. So how would we calculate the required flow rate to make sure that cleaning solution is in contact with 100% of the tubing perimeter?

I thought Manning's Equation could be used, but I don't know exactly how to apply that here. Any ideas?

If I cared to increase the effectiveness of a line cleaning solution by ensuring full contact with tubing walls (which I don't) I'd shoot for a Reynolds number >5k to ensure turbulent flow.

who said that, I dunno, people are sayng, I tell you, many many people are saying it, is it true, i don't know, but people are saying it...

You have words. You have the best words.

I just clean my lines with CO2. It forms a protective blanket...

Hah!

 

[TXCrash]

The restriction of piping depends on how it's laid.

 

[schematix]

LOL.

I am still using ALL OF MY ORIGINAL BEER LINES that i bought in 2010. They only ever see the occasional PBW and star san between batches. Honestly can't tell you the difference between those and the brand new ones i have.

Hell i still have an unopened container of BLC from a couple years ago.

Is beer line contamination real????

 

[fishfilet]

Wow, you go away for a bit, and when you come back, it's like Rosie O'Donnell's thoughts exploded all over your post.

Hah!

Line restriction is a dependent variable, so there's no easy way to use that as an input. I think what you were getting at though is that instead of having an input for relative pipe roughness it just has generic pipe type options. This makes it hardly applicable considering the difference that small changes in relative pipe roughness can have on line restriction, and the variability in relative roughness between different tubing materials.

Like I said, it's one of many sources of calculations. However, I did also say that I proved out, with real world flow rates, the calculations I use. While my iPhone acting as a stopwatch isn't perfect, I doubt I'm off more than a few one-hundredths of a second. If you want to know what is behind those choices, it's probably in the page source since it looks like a simple javascript calculator. I'll take a look and see what they are using.

While it does not seem to take 2 gallons per minute to assure the tube surface is in contact with cleaner, it may be as you suggest that the flow rate is set to ensure turbulent flow. I do have an email into the Brewers Association asking how this figure was derived. I doubt that I will get a response that is of use.

I do find this interesting. https://www.brewersassociation.org/...-quality-best-practices-groundbreaking-study/.

Now the thing is we can go back and forth over calculations and variables and blah, blah, blah. But I feel like the point is being missed here. I don't think that these recommendations were just guessed at. It looks to me like a lot of work goes into it. We can all question it of course. We can each one of us decide what is best for us. Like some here, we may decide that there is no need to clean our lines at all. That beer contamination is a myth, etc. Personally, I am going to take the advice of the work that goes into this recommendation over that of anonymous internet people. As far as hitting those flow rates, what I have posted is solid. I've proved it out on my system.

There is a lot of nitpicking going on here. I've never said I use PBW. I don't. The cleaner I use states that it should be recirculated for at least 15 minutes. Where does that 15 minutes come from? I could question that. I don't choose to. I think the manufacturer decided upon that number with some thought.

I would hope that everyone here can see the suggestions for what they are, ideas or options. Different ways to do things that depending on your circumstances may help. I for one will be replacing my single beer line, probably every other month or so. Due to my faucet, the diameter, and length of this line don't matter. I could use a 1' line. This makes replacing the line even more economical. If I get lot's of taps and long lines and it's no longer cost-effective, this may change. I could then use the pump I made to recirculate cleaner at 2GPM for 15 minutes. If you think that beer line used in homebrew is going to have radically different cleaning requirement than beer line used at a bar, and you're happy with a trickle, then, by all means, knock yourself out. I'm sure we will all do what we decide is necessary.

 

[JuanMoore]

Like I said, it's one of many sources of calculations. However, I did also say that I proved out, with real world flow rates, the calculations I use. While my iPhone acting as a stopwatch isn't perfect, I doubt I'm off more than a few one-hundredths of a second.

I don't doubt that you were able to match the flow rate on YOUR lines, but I can also say with great confidence that the resistance through my ultra smooth PET lined tubing is much much lower. Have to use 14' of line to get the same pour I got with 8' of vinyl.