Almost Complete (W/Pictures)
- Thread starter rollinred
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
- Status
rollinred
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of the time I was working on a microwave that didn't have the right plug on the end. Grabbed my jumper and plugged it in. Went to depress one of the alligator clips and got quite a shocker.
You can't fix stupid.
You can't fix stupid.
jpalarchio
Well-Known Member
This looks very similar to a flanged water heater element. I haven't looked at one real closely but perhaps one could be used instead of getting a regular element welded?
rollinred
Well-Known Member
I thought of it many times since I have dozens of flanged elements I could has "stole" from work. But, there is no way to attach them to the brew kettle unless you came through the bottom. If there was an element with a flange and the standard 1" threading we would be in much better shape.
jpalarchio
Well-Known Member
Forgot you were in the industry, guess I should have assumed you would have considered that.
OT: I have family up in TC and finally, after several failed attempts, made it over to Right Brain this summer. Interesting place, good brews (and haircuts?)...
kal
Well-Known Member
Tighten the nut on the inside the kettle enough and the washer that is outside the o-ring will be compressed between the kettle wall and the element box. The o-ring does not come into play. There's no way you can't have a good ground/continuity between the kettle wall and the element box. It's 3 pieces if metal completely sandwiched together as tight as they can go.
It's like placing three washers on a bolt and then tightening them down with a nut as tight as it can go. They have to have good electrical connectivity. It's impossible not to.
Maybe you're using a different o-ring and/or washer than the ones I use such that the result wasn't tight?
Here's a picture of how it should be:
The silicone on the inside is only placed *AFTER* the element is secured meaning that the element itself is clamped against the element box all around. Again, there's no way you can't have a good ground. The two are flat metal surfaces held together as tightly as possible. There is no silicone between them. Do not apply the silicone before.
Kal
kal
Well-Known Member
You need to tighten it way down. It needs to be 100% tight. When done correctly the element box will feel like it's welded on to the kettle. You cannot twist or turn it at all. (I tried as hard as I could, while heating water, wearing oven mitts).
Kettle size (within reason) does not matter as far as o-ring compression is concerned. The o-ring and washer are a specific size matched for each other so that the o-ring compresses down until the two surfaces it is against (kettle wall & element box) come in contact with the washer.
I don't take credit for my design as it's not actually mine.
It's exactly the same method of weldless sealing that John Blichmann uses to create a tight, waterproof seal on all their Boilermaker kettles for the ball valve, the top and bottom of the sight guage, and the thermometer. There is *nothing* welded on a Boilermaker kettle other than the handles. I don't know how many they've sold but I've never heard of anyone mentioning that their Boilermaker leaks on any forum. The ball valves gets pushed/pulled every brew day but stays extremely tight. If you told someone it was weldless they would not believe you. That's how tight your element box should feel. It should feel welded on when tightened correctly using my method (err, John's method).
The silicone is not needed as someone mentioned. I also used my setup a few times without it first, just to see. It's just a safety precaution (just in case).
Soemthing with your mockup was incorrect I'm afraid. Maybe my instructions were not clear?
Kal
cl330b
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 7
I use the same method of mounting the elements as Kal and it works great for me. No leaks at all, no silicone or JB weld either. Just the nut, element, o-ring, and washer. Although I did take an extra measure on the grounding. But I did verify with my meter before adding the extra ground strap and the ground was solid.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
Kal,
Thanks for joining in with your comments. I hope you noticed my praise for your innovate and down right inspirational approach to the electric brew system. I think most of us here owe a good portion of our ideas to what you did.
That said, my element mount is done. The way I have mine mounted is truthfully better, albeit, more difficult if you can't get it welded. Not only does leaking wort not have any single chance of getting in to the electrical box, the threads reach further and the o-ring can be compressed further.
The other issue I had with your design (You designed it, even if it was inspired by others), was that if you wanted to remove the element it could fall back inside the box. So really what I did was reverse engineer your mount system to make it more versitile and less prone to leakage.
I also want to mention that the size of the kettle makes a HUGE difference. I am guessing you have never used a 10 Gallon Blichmann for this. If not, on thing you wouldn't know is that once you get the nut started on the inside you physically can not turn it as tight as needed without some kind of wrench. This is do to the Kettle concave catching the apexes of the nut.
Did you notice how I put that washer inside the kettle behind the nut?
The reason is that this allows the nut to spin freely without catching. But doing that is only possible if the threads reach far enough in the kettle, which would require some kind of mount like I am using.
I think your method may work find on the larger kettles because it is easy to tighten the nut far enough. With a 10 gallon or similar I would literally have to flatten the wall of the kettle to get it working right so that the apexes of the nut do not catch.
Really the only thing that keeps things sealed in your design is being able to tighten the nut far enough. This is because the o-ring is squeezing against the threads instead of the surface that was designed to mate with the seal.
Again, thank you for everything you have done. I referenced your site many times in this build. As I said before the only shortcoming is the element mount system. The way I did it isn't perfect either, but it solves a couple of the problems that exist without breaking the bank. There is only two added steps of having to find a piece of steel or stainless and then getting a couple tack welds.
Thanks for joining in with your comments. I hope you noticed my praise for your innovate and down right inspirational approach to the electric brew system. I think most of us here owe a good portion of our ideas to what you did.
That said, my element mount is done. The way I have mine mounted is truthfully better, albeit, more difficult if you can't get it welded. Not only does leaking wort not have any single chance of getting in to the electrical box, the threads reach further and the o-ring can be compressed further.
The other issue I had with your design (You designed it, even if it was inspired by others), was that if you wanted to remove the element it could fall back inside the box. So really what I did was reverse engineer your mount system to make it more versitile and less prone to leakage.
I also want to mention that the size of the kettle makes a HUGE difference. I am guessing you have never used a 10 Gallon Blichmann for this. If not, on thing you wouldn't know is that once you get the nut started on the inside you physically can not turn it as tight as needed without some kind of wrench. This is do to the Kettle concave catching the apexes of the nut.
Did you notice how I put that washer inside the kettle behind the nut?
The reason is that this allows the nut to spin freely without catching. But doing that is only possible if the threads reach far enough in the kettle, which would require some kind of mount like I am using.
I think your method may work find on the larger kettles because it is easy to tighten the nut far enough. With a 10 gallon or similar I would literally have to flatten the wall of the kettle to get it working right so that the apexes of the nut do not catch.
Really the only thing that keeps things sealed in your design is being able to tighten the nut far enough. This is because the o-ring is squeezing against the threads instead of the surface that was designed to mate with the seal.
Again, thank you for everything you have done. I referenced your site many times in this build. As I said before the only shortcoming is the element mount system. The way I did it isn't perfect either, but it solves a couple of the problems that exist without breaking the bank. There is only two added steps of having to find a piece of steel or stainless and then getting a couple tack welds.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
I hope everyone understands why I am discussing this every chance I can. Not to advocate for myself and brag about my mount, but to explain that this previous style mount is not ideal in any means. It would never pass in any industry as being safe. Where as in the industry I am in (commercial food equipment), the way I mounted this is very common practice.
Here is the reason.
Make this a graphics visual in your head if you can.
Kettle wall/O-ring/sealing surface/electrical box
That equals total seal with NO chance of the liquid seeping behind the element
Old method
Kettle wall/O-ring/electrical box/sealing surface
This equals chance of liquid leaking directing in electrical box
There really are two sealing surfaces, the kettle wall and the flat element sealing surface. The O-ring should, in every case, touch those surfaces directly. Otherwise there is not a 100% reliable seal. Not to mention no part of the sealing surface should be inside the electrical box. It should be outside in case a leak occurs and therefore it leaks outside of everything.
But, this is also speaking from my industry where GFI is not used. So if you have enough confidence in the GFI to save your life then by all means use whatever method you choose to. I am in no way stating that everyone is about to die because the use one element method over another.
I will simply stick with the standards used in my industry, which may be one of the most prominent where heating elements are mixed with water. I know there is a reason why they have these standards, and it includes people who have perished, so maybe I am paranoid.
rollinred said:
This is a great explanation. I think some are overlooking this as the fundamental design change.
kal
Well-Known Member
I think there's still some confusion as this is incorrect:
Look at this picture of my design:
The electrical box cover that sits against the o-ring is so thin that the seal in my setup is indeed the same as yours which is: Kettle wall/O-ring/sealing surface/electrical box
The o-ring and washer are chosen such that the o-ring completely compresses against the flat side wall of the heating element as well as the kettle wall and the electrical box. This works because the cover plate is extremely thin (0.92mm).
The only reason to remove the element is if it's damaged and needs to be replaced. You mention that your method of welding it to a plate makes this easier but I'm not sure how as if you need to replace your element, it's not only $20 for a new element but you need to re-fabricate a new mounting plate and weld the element to the plate. For most people, that's more work and expense.
As others have said, the silicone on the inside isn't needed. Even if you do use it and need to replace the element, cut it off with an exacto and re-apply more later if you like. One tube will last you for many many elements.
The very thin element box cover on the inside bends somewhat (as does the thin washer) when you tighten things down which allows a good seal to be created against the kettle wall. If the plate used were rigid, this would not occur. On your setup when you tighten down the top and bottom of the o-ring will compress more than the left/right edges since the plate is thick/rigid. You can your o-ring here:
Since there's no washer around the o-ring on your design you have to be careful to not overtighten and cause the o-ring to bulge (causing leaks) nor can or should you bump or move the element box. That to me means it's more prone to leaks. This is common concern and complaint that people have always had with traditional weldless valves that use a silicone o-ring for structural support. They ask that you don't overtighten. But then they leak when you twist and turn them sometimes but you compress/decompressing the o-ring by varying amounts in different spots, causing leaks.
When you mocked up my design, are you sure that you didn't have the heating element rim inside the thick electrical box? It needs to be only against the thin cover, which then only reduces the element thread depth by 0.92mm (0.0362").
In other words, is the same box you used when you mocked it up?:
If yes, that won't work. The hole needs to be much larger. It has to be like this so that the element sits flush against the really thin cover. This is mine:
0.92mm is a very tiny amount, likely less than the thickness of the washer you used in the inside of the kettle. Especially when you consider the air space you have between it and the kettle wall on your setup:
If you could not get my design to work by reducing the element thread length by only 0.92mm then you did something differently than I did. Or maybe the element thread length is shorter on yours? Or something else is different?
Either way, if you got it to work then that's all that matters. We'll just have to agree to disagree which method is more leak-proof.
Kal
Look at this picture of my design:
The electrical box cover that sits against the o-ring is so thin that the seal in my setup is indeed the same as yours which is: Kettle wall/O-ring/sealing surface/electrical box
The o-ring and washer are chosen such that the o-ring completely compresses against the flat side wall of the heating element as well as the kettle wall and the electrical box. This works because the cover plate is extremely thin (0.92mm).
The only reason to remove the element is if it's damaged and needs to be replaced. You mention that your method of welding it to a plate makes this easier but I'm not sure how as if you need to replace your element, it's not only $20 for a new element but you need to re-fabricate a new mounting plate and weld the element to the plate. For most people, that's more work and expense.
As others have said, the silicone on the inside isn't needed. Even if you do use it and need to replace the element, cut it off with an exacto and re-apply more later if you like. One tube will last you for many many elements.
The very thin element box cover on the inside bends somewhat (as does the thin washer) when you tighten things down which allows a good seal to be created against the kettle wall. If the plate used were rigid, this would not occur. On your setup when you tighten down the top and bottom of the o-ring will compress more than the left/right edges since the plate is thick/rigid. You can your o-ring here:
Since there's no washer around the o-ring on your design you have to be careful to not overtighten and cause the o-ring to bulge (causing leaks) nor can or should you bump or move the element box. That to me means it's more prone to leaks. This is common concern and complaint that people have always had with traditional weldless valves that use a silicone o-ring for structural support. They ask that you don't overtighten. But then they leak when you twist and turn them sometimes but you compress/decompressing the o-ring by varying amounts in different spots, causing leaks.
When you mocked up my design, are you sure that you didn't have the heating element rim inside the thick electrical box? It needs to be only against the thin cover, which then only reduces the element thread depth by 0.92mm (0.0362").
In other words, is the same box you used when you mocked it up?:
If yes, that won't work. The hole needs to be much larger. It has to be like this so that the element sits flush against the really thin cover. This is mine:
0.92mm is a very tiny amount, likely less than the thickness of the washer you used in the inside of the kettle. Especially when you consider the air space you have between it and the kettle wall on your setup:
If you could not get my design to work by reducing the element thread length by only 0.92mm then you did something differently than I did. Or maybe the element thread length is shorter on yours? Or something else is different?
Either way, if you got it to work then that's all that matters. We'll just have to agree to disagree which method is more leak-proof.
Kal
rollinred
Well-Known Member
Kal,
I mocked it up exactly like yours. I used different components. than what you see. Relying on lateral compressive force to seal is what all of us are talking about. It is not nearly as reliable of a seal as a sandwich installation, especially since the curvature of the kettle causes uneven compression.
For example, what if you o-ring gets a cut toward the inside without you knowing, where does the wort or water go? It will go back past the o-ring and likely into the electrical box.
If my o-ring gets damaged where does the wort or water go? On to my floor or brew stand where I can just wipe it up.
Sure, these circumstances are unlikely. But for anyone using the method which you propose, I would highly recommend drilling a weep hole in the bottom of the electrical box for emergency purposes since a leak in to the electrical box would be unseen.
The washer on the outside of the kettle around the o-ring does not distribute the force on the o-ring evenly, especially on 10 gallon kettles. I have cranked my element down as tight as a could and never had the o-ring displace at all.
I understand that some people will not like to, or simply won't, want to go through the extra effort. It took me no longer to create this element mount with the welds than when I did your method. Sure, I am lucky enough to have a welder in my dads shop. But I think after trying both methods, I think many will see the benefit in doing it this way. The only weak spot I still have is that the electrical box is not completely water proof, only splash proof, making it equal to yours in that regard.
Please don't take this as me trying to downplay what you have done. I am simply stating that it is not ideal, nor is any method anyone has created here. We are all piecing together stuff that wasn't meant to go together. Any improvement we can make gives someone else an idea that may end at the perfect solution.
Its a good discussion to have though.
I mocked it up exactly like yours. I used different components. than what you see. Relying on lateral compressive force to seal is what all of us are talking about. It is not nearly as reliable of a seal as a sandwich installation, especially since the curvature of the kettle causes uneven compression.
For example, what if you o-ring gets a cut toward the inside without you knowing, where does the wort or water go? It will go back past the o-ring and likely into the electrical box.
If my o-ring gets damaged where does the wort or water go? On to my floor or brew stand where I can just wipe it up.
Sure, these circumstances are unlikely. But for anyone using the method which you propose, I would highly recommend drilling a weep hole in the bottom of the electrical box for emergency purposes since a leak in to the electrical box would be unseen.
The washer on the outside of the kettle around the o-ring does not distribute the force on the o-ring evenly, especially on 10 gallon kettles. I have cranked my element down as tight as a could and never had the o-ring displace at all.
I understand that some people will not like to, or simply won't, want to go through the extra effort. It took me no longer to create this element mount with the welds than when I did your method. Sure, I am lucky enough to have a welder in my dads shop. But I think after trying both methods, I think many will see the benefit in doing it this way. The only weak spot I still have is that the electrical box is not completely water proof, only splash proof, making it equal to yours in that regard.
Please don't take this as me trying to downplay what you have done. I am simply stating that it is not ideal, nor is any method anyone has created here. We are all piecing together stuff that wasn't meant to go together. Any improvement we can make gives someone else an idea that may end at the perfect solution.
Its a good discussion to have though.
kal
Well-Known Member
Yup! Re-thinking things is always good. For example - the weep hole. I thought about that a couple of years ago but never got around to do it. It warrants looking at again if for no other reason than safety reasons, just in case. You want to see wort or water dripping out in case there's a leak so that you know something is wrong.
Kal
Kal
There is definitely still confusion here. Kal, with your method, the sealing surface (the element flange) is INSIDE the junction box. A leak past the o-ring will end up inside the box.
Here is a shot of my element installed. If the pic is clear enough, you should see stainless half coupling, element gasket, element flange, box. It cannot leak past the flange so cannot leak into the box. This is the design change.
Here is a shot of my element installed. If the pic is clear enough, you should see stainless half coupling, element gasket, element flange, box. It cannot leak past the flange so cannot leak into the box. This is the design change.
Even more of an issue, IMO, is the way that the O-ring is being used (which was mentioned already, so I'm probably beating a dead horse). I have complete faith in an O-ring used in the proper way, especially a high quality silicone O-ring, which is compressed between two surfaces AND retained in a groove. If my O-ring leaks, it's going to fill my electrical enclosure. Am I worried about it? Not at all. I know that the installation method can't be better. When I designed this, I was going to drill two small holes at the bottom of the ferrules to act as drains if the gasket were to leak, but to be honest, I can't put a drill to it! I also just don't worry about that O-ring leaking. You guys that don't have the O-ring captured in a groove have every right to worry about them leaking. It's much more likely in that type of installation.
lschiavo, this statement is incorrect. Kal's photo of the box interior with the silicone makes it look like the element flange is the sealing surface, but it is not. The box cover is the sealing surface, the flange is behind it. There is a very tight fit, I had to thread my element through the cover. I will take a photo of mine this evening that will illustrate this arrangement without the silicone. I would suspect that if there was a leak, even if the o ring was compromised, the liquid would take the path of least resistance and flow out between the box cover and kettle. I could test this with a full kettle (unplugged of course) and loosening the nut.
lschiavo's welded coupler arrangement looks nice and sturdy. I don't think water has a chance of getting the the box.
rollinred's method will also not let water in the box, but I don't think it looks very sturdy and an o ring could get damaged, squeezed out or over compressed without the washer between the outside of the kettle and the box. I am curious to see how it would hold up to a brew day.
kevink, you mention you have an issue with the way the o ring is used, but the Kal method is the same as all of the fittings on a blichmann. The washer ensures the o ring is tightened just right so there is a good solid seal. The washer and the threads form the "groove" that keeps the o ring in place and keep it from becoming over-compressed but still form a good seal. Once the whole assembly was tightened, the box felt very sturdy and I cannot move the box or element.
BTW, that triclover element is real nice.
Man, we are beating the hell out of this dead horse. Time for a cold one
rollinred
Well-Known Member
THIS IS THE PROBLEM!!
It means that you have a straight shot for water/wort go behind that cover should the o-ring not seat right or gets a cut/crack in it.
Trust me. I deal with this kind of stuff all the time. It is not a safe way to do it. The element and element only should be the point of contact with the o-ring.
Even if your element had to be threaded through the hole water can get through it. It would amaze you how small of a hole water can get through.
We are not beating a dead horse when it comes to water mixing with electricity. If you use the Kal design I HIGHLY recommend drilling a weep hole in the bottom of the electrical box. In fact I would go so far as saying you MUST drill a weep hole.
rsklhm10
Well-Known Member
Is the element completely welded to that stainless steel plate, or just tack welded in those few spots?
rollinred
Well-Known Member
For now it is just tack welded. I intend to go back and weld it fully. I was checking the method before spending that time to do it. Heat from welding is a problem though, you don't want to melt the plastic portion of the element. Realistically you could leave it tack welded and just use silicone on the small space if you only require a splash proof mount. If you prefer a completely water proof mount you would have to weld all the way around.
No, that is not "straight shot". Trust me, I use it quite a bit and it works fine.
Your method would work great in a welded coupler. Speaking of water and tiny holes, what about a boilover with your arrangement? Wouldn't water leak in between the tack welds?
Your method would work great in a welded coupler. Speaking of water and tiny holes, what about a boilover with your arrangement? Wouldn't water leak in between the tack welds?
iijakii
Well-Known Member
I'd love a triclover setup for it. But alas, weldless.
rsklhm10
Well-Known Member
Kind of my question, it was stated that your mount is fully waterproof. However, if it is only tack welded (which is obviously not waterproof), you are relying on the silicone to seal the element (assumably on the inside of the mount). So what is the real difference from kal's method? Honestly, kal (and I) are also using silicone, only ours is for additional assurance from leaks. Whereas you are actually relying on the silicone for your seal...
Maybe I am missing something? As it is apparent, as well as admitted, that your silicone o-ring is only to prevent scratches on the kettle.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
What!?
There is a LOT in what you wrote that was not stated by me anywhere.
This is not, nor ever was meant as waterproof. It is splash proof. What I have done is a proof of concept... nothing more. Is it usable yes. But I am still searching for the method I choose to use to make it water proof. Which could either be welding it all the way around and designing a new cover for the box or finding a different enclosure. The other thing to mention is that removing the element in the Kal setup versus this setup would disturb the silicone on the inside. Creating a potential fore leakage. The Silicone I used is in a paper thin gap that never gets disturbed and never has to be reapplied.
My method has nothing to do with scratches on the outside. I used the washer inside to allow me to tighten it further which also has the benefit of eliminating scratches on the inside.
Using lateral compressive force on the o-ring is not a good method, especially when the surface the o-ring being forced against is NOT the flange on the heating element. Direct compressive force is how an o-ring is designed to be used. The o-ring should mate with two surfaces, the kettle and the heating element flange, if you put anything else between them you have a potential for leaks. In the case of the Kal method, the leak would be directly in to the electrical box. Leaks in a method like the one I am using will go on the floor. I much prefer the floor than inside the electrical box.
rsklhm10
Well-Known Member
I do believe on more than one occasion you have set forth that your mount is a better concept than kal's and "cannot" leak. If it cannot leak, that would lead almost everyone to believe your mount is "waterproof." However, now you indicate it is splash proof, but better because you have tack welded the element and proceeded to use silicone (again, kal's method uses silicone in practically the same method as yours). Personally, I still find it hard pressed to believe that the manner in which the o-ring in kal's method is not a good method. From what I understand, having an o-ring or gasket between the element base and the other object is accpetable, but being between another object is not. Maybe it should be clarified again that the element is extremly tight up against the thin element cover (not the large box) to the point where the o-ring not being against the element base is a technicality. Further, the element cover provides a bigger service area to seal against as compared to the element base.
In simplest terms I think about it like this. Even if I give you that an o-ring should not be used in that manner, if one used an o-ring between the kettle and the element base and the o-ring failed it would still cause a leak "into" the element cover (this is how elements are mounted in water heaters). Finally, I have never had to remove my element and do not believe it will be necessary unless the element fails, so that is not really a factor to me. Even still, we are talking about running a simple bead of silicone, not re-inventing the wheel.
Notwithstanding, I commend you on your design and think it certainly has benefits. As I said before, I am not here to argue over it, but simply further understand and clarify. As SWMBO constantly says, I make my living by arguing, that's the nature of my profession and I would rather not do that here... Cheers!
As a side note for those using a kal method. Just to see if I could get it to leak, I just hooked up my pressure washer and sprayed the spare mount on an extra keggle I have from about a foot away. I could not get the element to leak. It did dent the thin metal cover.
I don't agree. Here is a good reference on o-rings by an o-ring manufacturer.
Some key points from page 5:
-The o-ring's circular cross section is also appealing because it is adaptable to axial, radial, or angular squeeze.
-o-rings seal in both directions
-the o-ring is flexible and absorbs metal tolerance stack-up
It is true that we are not using a water element as it was designed to be used. I think we all know that. It comes with a square profile gasket. We discard that and use the high temp silicone o-ring. We are using o-rings as they were designed to be used. It doesn't matter which two surfaces are mated, as long the o-ring is sufficiently compressed to create a seal.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
Your not accounting for the curvature of the kettle and the uneven force being applied.
rsklhm10:
Read your post again
rsklhm10 said:
You're talking about two different concepts.
1. Leakage, which is the concept that water leaks out of the kettle through this particular fitting. I do believe, through the test I did, that this method leaks less because you can get more pressure applied to the o-ring without the washer being in there. Regardless, you have heard me say that if mine does leak, it leaks on to the floor and NEVER has a chance to get in the electrical box because the element flange is exterior of the box. Again, the bigger the kettle the less likely a leak will develop and drip out of the keg, but in the Kal design, it can get behind the metal cover that is bolted on.
2. Splash proof vs water proof. This concept is in regards to some mishap such as boil over or external splash of water, such as during cleaning. This design is no less splash proof than Kal's. Which I have already stated, that we have equality in the aspect of our design. This is a situation where the use of silicone is also appropriate. Think about the caulk around your bath. Same concept here except for my gaps are FAR smaller and much more capable of using a sealant because it acts as a gasket rather than a barrier.
The aspect we should be most concerned with is number 1. Most importantly because we can not see inside the box while running. If there is a leak from the kettle that gets inside the box there is a very dangerous situation. That is only possible with a design where the o-ring does not meet directly with the flange.
And I will say it again, bigger kettles will have a significantly smaller chance of leaking with any type of mount. They have much less curvature and apply a more even pressure on the o-ring. As you tighten the o-ring on a contoured surface it will tend to squeeze outward where there is less pressure. In Kal's design the washer is required because without it, on small kettles, there is a much greater chance that the o-ring does not squeeze in enough to mate with the element shaft. That risk is eliminated with an 0-ring to flange connection. Even if it does leak, you know it within seconds and can address it.
Edit: Lets make sure when discussing we are talking about the same thing. Leakage from the kettle or splashes from outside factors.
kal
Well-Known Member
Below are some pictures of a my heating element design installed and running on a 10 gallon Blichmann Boilermaker. These were sent to me by Mike of Spike Innovations late last night while load testing a control panel he just finished building on his own personal 10 gallon kettle. (Thanks Mike!)
The nut on the inside was not completely tightened on purpose to try and generate leaks. It did not leak when tugging and pushing on it in every direction, even with 200 degree water around it while running.
Continuity with the ground was tested as well and the kettle was properly grounded at every point tested. The top and bottom of the washer was in contact with the kettle wall at all times during tugging and pushing.
There is certainly more wall curvature than with (say) the larger diameter 20 gallon Blichmann or a 15 gallon keggle, but even the 10 gallon Blichmann these tests show that it does not appear to leak.
Kal
The nut on the inside was not completely tightened on purpose to try and generate leaks. It did not leak when tugging and pushing on it in every direction, even with 200 degree water around it while running.
Continuity with the ground was tested as well and the kettle was properly grounded at every point tested. The top and bottom of the washer was in contact with the kettle wall at all times during tugging and pushing.
There is certainly more wall curvature than with (say) the larger diameter 20 gallon Blichmann or a 15 gallon keggle, but even the 10 gallon Blichmann these tests show that it does not appear to leak.
Kal
This whole discussion was not started about whether or not a design leaks. We all want them not to. It is about IF it leaks and then not having a path to leak into the electrical box.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
This.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
Just look at the tiny contact patch between the 0-ring and the element base. If there were no electrical box cover there, you would double or more than double the surface area contact between the O-ring and the element base. I know, this is kind of slightly off topic, but I just realized that...
rollinred
Well-Known Member
Correct. Also notice that the o-ring compressive force is against the cover and kettle wall. In a situation where there is a leak which path do you think the wort will take?
1. the path where compressive force from the o-ring is greatest...
or
2. the path of least resistance where there is a smaller amount of lateral compressive force.
It may be a rare situation and in most peoples experience they have never had a leak.
In my experience I have never been in a car accident in the thousands of times I have drove. So should I stop wearing my seat belt?
All it takes is one nick from the o-ring being put on or for a slight gap to develop and the wort will take that path of least resistance... right in to the electrical box.
Drill a weep hole if you insist on using this method.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
I agree with you that you have much less to worry about. But I do hope you lubricate the o-ring before tightening. We have more o-ring failures do to no lubrication on thread in parts than any other.
I recommend a mineral oil and not a food oil as the proteins congeal and make a mess. And a thin coat of mineral oil won't kill you.
iijakii
Well-Known Member
Most of us have keg lube around anyways.
Definitely. During building my keggle, I had the element in and out maybe a half a dozen times. Believe it or not, I found that water, spit, and keg lube all provide basically the same amount of lubrication, i.e., the same amount of force on the wrench compressed the O-ring the same amount, resulting in the same element clocking. No lube at all requires much more force on the wrench which I'm sure just wreaks havoc on the poor O-ring. It's a very noticeable difference. I think I settled on Keg Lube, though.
rollinred
Well-Known Member
I forgot about keg lube!
That would be just as good as mineral oil!
Water might seem to help but it doesn't provide enough friction resistance to get my vote.
That would be just as good as mineral oil!
Water might seem to help but it doesn't provide enough friction resistance to get my vote.
- Status
