Automated all in one systems versus a conventional stand... convince me ?

[brewman !]

I agree with everything but this. Thermodynamics do not change based on if hot is inside cold or cold is inside hot. Given the same surface area and temperature differential, the only variable that immersion has is the temperature stratification due to no stirring.

The fact that its counter flow means that the cooling liquid goes from cool to steaming and likewise the wort goes from steaming to cool for the entire cooling period.

With an immersion chiller the cooling liquid goes from cool to the present temp of the wort in the vessel, whatever that might be. And for 90% of the cooling period the wort goes no where near the temp of the coolant, effectively wasting its cold property.

If you are going to run ice water, you'll get a ton more cooling from it if you run it through a counterflow chiller.

Best of all is to run 2 counterflows in serial fashion. 1st stage uses tap water and the second stage uses ice water.

Make sense ?

 

[JKoravos]

I agree with everything but this. Thermodynamics do not change based on if hot is inside cold or cold is inside hot. Given the same surface area and temperature differential, the only variable that immersion has is the temperature stratification due to no stirring.

Counterflows are far more efficient than IC precisely due to the different "thermodynamics" of the two systems.

 

[Onkel_Udo]

Counterflows are far more efficient than IC precisely due to the different "thermodynamics" of the two systems.

I think we would need a definition of efficient here. If we are talking speed of getting a given volume of water to pitching temperature...an argument can be made for the counterflow (thought this can get pretty thin unless we are taking 32 f water and wort pumped through a long cfc at a moderately high rate). If we are talking about the amount of ice needed as brewman claims...I disagree.

It is very true that the counterflow nature of the of the counterflow chiller make the "best" use of a unit of water in a given time because it uses the water at its coldest to cool the wort at its coolest. This does not me that it uses less btu's (or Joules or Calories) to do it.

End of internet argument on my end. I think both types have their place based on you personal system design and level of comfort with compromises each method have.

 

[JKoravos]

Yes, it takes the same amount of energy, but the CFC is more efficient at transferring the heat of the wort to the cold water. Although brewman was referring to creating break which the CFC is far better at achieving.

Depending on your situation either one might work 'better' for you.

 

[nanogi]

Couple of points to make on this.

- You have access to just as many automated, fancy systems as I do. We live in an international marketplace and you can just as easily get anything that I can get. So that is a bad argument. Might be cheaper for me but its still available to you.

- Extract brewing is no less marvelous than Partial or All Grain. Assuming your recipe is followed properly, I am fairly sure that you can produce an extract beer that is identical to an All Grain. Might even get a better batch out of the Extract due to fewer variables.

- You appear to be a purist. Which is fine. But brewing beer is brewing beer, whether you are brewing Extract, Partial, AG and doing it in a pot, BIAB, single, double, triple vessel system or Automated and computer aided.

Are you growing your own barley & hops or taking the easy way out and buying them? As you can tell, there are multiple levels of "purist" as well and in the end, we all do what we can to brew the beers that we love to drink.

I am about to shell out some dough for the Brew-Boss system. Is it the most pure and perfect system out there? Nope, but its space efficient and produces a great product WITH my input. By taking a lot of the tedium out of the equation, I am hoping to be able to focus on the recipes themselves and hopefully refine my beers to the point that people with refined beer palates will appreciate and enjoy. Until then, I'll just keep drinking the swill that I produce

Look, first point: in Argentina you CAN'T buy foreign products, imports are BANNED by customs (protectionist law, i don't support it, but that's politics and won't get into it. Bottom line: i cannot access the international marketplace without breaking the law and spending tons of money worth of bribes)
Second point: i am not saying that better beer is brewed in all grain brewing, i'm saying that i enjoy the process, and extract brewing takes the beauty off. If you only brew beer to drink the finished product go ahead, but my point of view is that it is kind of boring to brew it, which doesn't mean it's not correct or shouldn't be done.
Third point: i am not a purist, and agree with you on this one, brewing is brewing. But having the chance to choose, i suggest you chose all grain, it has simply more beauty
Fourth point: i DO grow my own hops and i am experimenting with malting my own barley (i can't grow it because it takes up a lot of space). And also use my own strain of yeast replicated by me. But these are not related to the topic. As i said, to me the beauty of this hobby is in the process, if you can't grow your own hops but can mash some grains do it. If in your country you can only get extract then brew anyways, but having all the chances and possibilities open i wouldn't suggest you chose to push a button to make some wort, it's just not fun, at least to me, and i would like to transmit it, because maybe in 3 months you think "i wish somebody had told me this would get repetitive and boring". Or maybe not, maybe you love it, but at least y know i warned you there is a chance that you may end up disappointed with an automated beer system.
The biggest challenge is to make the best beer with your creativity. If you buy sierra nevada's plant you will probably get an excellent pale ale, but isn't it better to brew it with an equipment designed, constructed and operated by you and only you?
I'm not a purist, i just love to design machines that will fit my needs and produce the best product possible, with the added satisfaction of knowing i built that machine.

 

[brewman !]

Yes, it takes the same amount of energy, but the CFC is more efficient at transferring the heat of the wort to the cold water.

A CFC will use far less water to chill a given amount of wort because all of the cooling water gets heated to TwortIn. With an immersion chiller, the cooling water only gets heated to TwortOut, ie the kettle temp, which falls as the chill proceeds.

Summarizing

- CFCs use less water
- CFCs chill faster
- CFCs creates a much better cold break
- CFCs are more complicated and more expensive
- CFCs are more difficult to clean

 

[nanogi]

Have you tried using a plate chiller?

 

[brewman !]

- Extract brewing is no less marvelous than Partial or All Grain. Assuming your recipe is followed properly, I am fairly sure that you can produce an extract beer that is identical to an All Grain. Might even get a better batch out of the Extract due to fewer variables.

FWIW, according to Dave Miller (Brew Like A Pro) and Gordon Strong (Brewing Better Beer), extract beers cannot compete with all grain beers. They both say it outright in their respective books.

And while we are at it, they both run a conventional mash, they both circulate their mash, they both sparge, they both counterflow chill and they both only brew all grain. DM doesn't believe in decoctions whereas GS is on the line.

Both of these men are smart and experienced. Both of them would like to simplify their brew day as much as possible. However, neither man is interested in taking short cuts that affect quality.

Google is your friend if you don't know who those guys are.

I carried on building my conventional single tier brewstand. I'll keep my eye on the all in one systems for advancements.

 

[brewman !]

Have you tried using a plate chiller?

I bought one, haven't used it yet. Afraid to, afraid of plugging it. I'm probably going to sell it and build a CFC. I sold the one I had... :smack::smack::smack:

 

[JKoravos]

A CFC will use far less water to chill a given amount of wort because all of the cooling water gets heated to TwortIn. With an immersion chiller, the cooling water only gets heated to TwortOut, ie the kettle temp, which falls as the chill proceeds.

Summarizing

- CFCs use less water
- CFCs chill faster
- CFCs creates a much better cold break
- CFCs are more complicated and more expensive
- CFCs are more difficult to clean

If you're recirculating your cooling water (which apparently is common now?) it won't necessarily use less water. A typical IC setup, where the water just goes down the drain, will use much more water. Although the trade-off for squeezing all the cooling power out of your water using an IC is much slower cooling times.

I've been using an IC for years. It uses a metric crap-ton of water.

 

[nanogi]

I bought one, haven't used it yet. Afraid to, afraid of plugging it. I'm probably going to sell it and build a CFC. I sold the one I had... :smack::smack::smack:

The plate chiller is just the same as a CFC regarding sanitation and cleaning, they are just as hard to clean, but neither one is THAT hard.
It has the advantage of being much much smaller and really maximising water usage and creating a good hot/cold break
Why are you afraid of plugging it??

 

[nanogi]

CFC is better than IC. That has been proven worldwide by many well-known brewers. It's an argument that is not worth getting into. For begginers and small set ups it may work, but CFC will always be more effective.

 

[JKoravos]

CFC is better than IC. That has been proven worldwide by many well-known brewers. It's an argument that is not worth getting into. For begginers and small set ups it may work, but CFC will always be more effective.

ICs are (relatively) cheap and easy and they work. Those are their big benefits.

I've been using a single copper coil as my HERMS and IC for the last several years. It's been great. That being said, I've already purchased a plate chiller for the next system.

 

[nanogi]

I think it is better to put the herms in ice-cold water and make wort go through inside (kind of a CFC) than using it as an IC. This is because below 40°C wort can get contaminated, and when using an IC nobody puts a lid on the pot. You also reduce DMS and oxidation precursors

 

[Onkel_Udo]

I've been using an IC for years. It uses a metric crap-ton of water.

If you brew outside, hook the other end to sprinkler and water you lawn. That is what I did in OK. You need you flow rate high enough that the water, after leaving the sprinkler and before hitting the grass is under 115 f but that is rarely hard to accomplish.

 

[brewman !]

If you're recirculating your cooling water (which apparently is common now?) it won't necessarily use less water. A typical IC setup, where the water just goes down the drain, will use much more water. Although the trade-off for squeezing all the cooling power out of your water using an IC is much slower cooling times.

An IC uses way more water, even if you recirculate it. To get the wort down to the same temp as a CFC, you'll have to drain and replace the recirculating water because it warms up as you go. You'll need to do this several times, and the temp of the water you are draining is going to be nowhere near boiling like it would be from a CFC. Thus it uses way more water.

Every ounce of water used by a CFC goes from the tap temp to near boiling. There is not a way to be any more water efficient, nor time efficient.

My first criteria for all these systems is that they chill the wort, at least with an IC, but most preferably with a CFC. And that almost demands a pump, though some guys get by with gravity. I like to circulate boiling wort or water through a CFC before I use it, just to make doubly sure that its sanitized. If I'm not running that fluid down the drain, that needs a pump.

 

[nanogi]

If you put a pump before the CFC you DON'T need to sanitise it. Boiling wort will do the job

 

[Onkel_Udo]

CFC is better than IC. That has been proven worldwide by many well-known brewers. It's an argument that is not worth getting into. For begginers and small set ups it may work, but CFC will always be more effective.

Hence all the jacketed tanks...which work using the same process as an IC. Granted, most places do "pre-chill" before going to the jacketed fermentors.

"Better" is so relative that hate it when folks make a blanket statement on an opinion as if it is a fact.

CFC's are better at chilling wort in a single pass if there is adequate cooling fluid flow and temperature and the adequate drop or pump to move the wort at the correct rate. I requires that the wort be transferred a second time IF you wish to leave the cold break behind. They also do not require stirring to reach a consistent temperature.

IC's also can create excellent cold break when sized correctly and using an ice bath recirculation or very cold water. Simpler to maintain as all they need is a rinse...the rest of the sanitation can be done by the boiling wort. Do not require the wort to me moved twice. Do not require the wort to be moved while hot (though I really have never seen HSA happen...I am sure it is real). MUCH easier to use with whole leaf hops. Set it and forget it (potentially possible with a CFC as well but I have never achieved it) so you can clean gear while it chills.

Both probably have other advantages and disadvantages I do not personally know of maybe do not recall but the statement that one is proven better is similar to saying my work truck is better than my race car because it holds more stuff and gets better gas mileage.

 

[JKoravos]

An IC uses way more water, even if you recirculate it. To get the wort down to the same temp as a CFC, you'll have to drain and replace the recirculating water because it warms up as you go. You'll need to do this several times, and the temp of the water you are draining is going to be nowhere near boiling like it would be from a CFC. Thus it uses way more water.

Every ounce of water used by a CFC goes from the tap temp to near boiling. There is not a way to be any more water efficient, nor time efficient.

My first criteria for all these systems is that they chill the wort, at least with an IC, but most preferably with a CFC. And that almost demands a pump, though some guys get by with gravity. I like to circulate boiling wort or water through a CFC before I use it, just to make doubly sure that its sanitized. If I'm not running that fluid down the drain, that needs a pump.

I was factoring in ice in the IC recirc scheme. Using straight tap water, the CFC is more water efficient.

 

[brewman !]

I was factoring in ice in the IC recirc scheme. Using straight tap water, the CFC is more water efficient.

Ice doesn't change anything ! The thermodynamic principles are still the same.

If you want to make the best use of ice, set up a 2 stage CFC. Use tap water to get the wort down to near tap temp in the 2st stage and use ice to get it down further in the second stage. DO NOT RECIRCULATE THE ICE WATER. Run it slow enough that you won't run out for the entire chill process and that is the maximum efficient use you can get from it.

 

[brewman !]

If you put a pump before the CFC you DON'T need to sanitise it. Boiling wort will do the job

NOT true.

If you need 180F for a period of time (a couple minutes) to sanitize the wort coil, you need to circulate it prior to chilling.

If you don't circulate and go straight to chilling, the wort is near tap water temp at the end of the wort coil and thus it never sanitizes.

A hot (near boiling) fluid must be run through the wort coil with nothing running in the cooling coil to sanitize a CFC. Thus when I look at these all in one systems, I'm looking for a pump, maybe 2 and a CFC. When someone tells me that you can add the CFC externally, I say sure you can and also that you are one big step closer to a conventional single tier brew stand. Someone needs to build the CFC right into the brewstand.

FYI, I'm building a steam powered brewstand. I have 2 options for boiling wort. Put the steam through a coil in the boil kettle or run the wort though a steam heated CFC below the boil kettle. The same CFC could be used to used to heat mash liquid as well as chilling wort, making for a pretty neat all in one. HOWEVER, boilers are big and bulky, so unless your kitchen has a steam line in it, this would not be a feasible all in one. There are some other issues too.

 

[nanogi]

Hence all the jacketed tanks...which work using the same process as an IC. Granted, most places do "pre-chill" before going to the jacketed fermentors.

"Better" is so relative that hate it when folks make a blanket statement on an opinion as if it is a fact.

CFC's are better at chilling wort in a single pass if there is adequate cooling fluid flow and temperature and the adequate drop or pump to move the wort at the correct rate. I requires that the wort be transferred a second time IF you wish to leave the cold break behind. They also do not require stirring to reach a consistent temperature.

IC's also can create excellent cold break when sized correctly and using an ice bath recirculation or very cold water. Simpler to maintain as all they need is a rinse...the rest of the sanitation can be done by the boiling wort. Do not require the wort to me moved twice. Do not require the wort to be moved while hot (though I really have never seen HSA happen...I am sure it is real). MUCH easier to use with whole leaf hops. Set it and forget it (potentially possible with a CFC as well but I have never achieved it) so you can clean gear while it chills.

Both probably have other advantages and disadvantages I do not personally know of maybe do not recall but the statement that one is proven better is similar to saying my work truck is better than my race car because it holds more stuff and gets better gas mileage.

Okey, want some reasons?
When sized correctly IC will create a good cold break? Yes, but you will use a wole lot of more tubing than CFC. With just 6 meters of 3/8" copper tubing in my CFC i drop the wort to pitching temperature. 50 liters in 20 minutes. And using just tap water. How long is your IC?
To sanitise a CFC you just need to recirculate boiling wort (without the water open of course) 5 minutes before finishing boiling. Or making alcohol or vortex pass through it before wort, and that's it. Why would you move the wort twice?? I use something which don't know how it is called in English, 50 cm of SS tubing attached to the hose that goes to the CFC. So i take the wort from the pot controlling from where it takes it, avoiding trub, hops and all that stuff. I only leave 2 or 3 litres of wort in the pot and no solid garbage in the fermenter. And CFC can be set and forgotten about, just plug it to the tap in your pot and that's it. And with an IC you need to remove the wort from the pot afterwards, so you have 2 steps, chilling and then emptying the pot. With CFC you just empty, as chilling is done as you empty. Your truck may be better than your race car, i know about beer, not cars. And ask in any brewery, do they use IC, CFC or plate chillers? They will always use the best, more effective and efficient, none uses an IC.

 

[nanogi]

NOT true.

If you need 180F for a period of time (a couple minutes) to sanitize the wort coil, you need to circulate it prior to chilling.

If you don't circulate and go straight to chilling, the wort is near tap water temp at the end of the wort coil and thus it never sanitizes.

A hot (near boiling) fluid must be run through the wort coil with nothing running in the cooling coil to sanitize a CFC. Thus when I look at these all in one systems, I'm looking for a pump, maybe 2 and a CFC. When someone tells me that you can add the CFC externally, I say sure you can and also that you are one big step closer to a conventional single tier brew stand. Someone needs to build the CFC right into the brewstand.

FYI, I'm building a steam powered brewstand. I have 2 options for boiling wort. Put the steam through a coil in the boil kettle or run the wort though a steam heated CFC below the boil kettle. The same CFC could be used to used to heat mash liquid as well as chilling wort, making for a pretty neat all in one. HOWEVER, boilers are big and bulky, so unless your kitchen has a steam line in it, this would not be a feasible all in one. There are some other issues too.

Sorry, i was referring to just the pump, not the CFC. It's like you say, you need to circulate wort without cooling it to sanitise

 

[brewman !]

The faster the temp drops on a unit of wort, the better the cold break. There is no IC in the world that can drop the temp of 5 gallons of wort as fast as a CFC can drop the temp of an increment of wort.

Better hot break = cleaner wort into the fermentor, providing you rack the clear wort off of it once it settles out. If you aren't going to rack the wort off the hot break, it probably doesn't matter.

 

[schematix]

I'm gonna throw myself into this...

I use a plate chiller. It's the same principle as a counter flow in terms of the thermodynamics. The main difference is that a modest plate chiller has much more surface area than a modest CFC. Only benefit I can see to immersion is no potential for clogging.

I've refined my process over the years to:
-15 mins prior to BKO, recirculate wort loop for about a minute. Outlet temp from plate chiller should read at least 190-200F. Let's stand. Every 3 minutes, turn pump on for about 15 seconds to recirculate cooled (but still hot) wort back to kettle. This takes care of sanitation.
-At BKO, start wort loop and use TAP WATER to chill.
-Once kettle temp has reached into the low 100s and rate of cooling slows, switch cooling water to ice water loop. I use my MLT filled with ice water.
-Once wort leaving the plate chiller is a few degrees below desired set point, begin flowing to fermenter(s).
-To clean chiller, flush and back flush plate chiller 4 times each direction. Recirculate forward and back with hot PBW, then flush with tap water 4 times in each direction again.

 

[JKoravos]

Ice doesn't change anything ! The thermodynamic principles are still the same.

If you want to make the best use of ice, set up a 2 stage CFC. Use tap water to get the wort down to near tap temp in the 2st stage and use ice to get it down further in the second stage. DO NOT RECIRCULATE THE ICE WATER. Run it slow enough that you won't run out for the entire chill process and that is the maximum efficient use you can get from it.

Ice and tap water are very different. I'd say using ice changes things quite a bit. Using ice means you use less water, which was what i was getting at.

The thermodynamics are what they are, but you can change a lot of things to manipulate them and get them working to your advantage.

Given the same temperature water and wort, the CFC is always more efficient (I don't think anyone is debating that). IC users have taken to using large amounts of ice to make them more water and time efficient. It actually cools the wort pretty quickly, too.

The thing i never liked about the CFC is the bulk of the wort still sits at near boiling temps as you chill, where as recircing back to the kettle drops you down below DMS formation temp very quickly and keeps hop oils from volatilizing. Going from CFC to whirlpool IC made a big difference in hop presence in my beers.

Of course, you can recirc back to the kettle with a CFC, but then you lose some of that efficiency as your bulk wort temp drops.

 

[schematix]

DO NOT RECIRCULATE THE ICE WATER. Run it slow enough that you won't run out for the entire chill process and that is the maximum efficient use you can get from it.

I disagree. You should recirculate your ice water if your return water is colder than your supply water. This is very typical once your wort is below 100F. In the summer my tap water will be 85F, but after the ice water has gone through the plate chiller it has warmed from 32 up to ~50. If i sent that 50 degree water down the drain I have to replace it with 85F tap water, which wastes more ice. Now with that said, the first minute or so it might be worth sending down the drain because it's likely between 85 and 100F, but i usually just recirc with it because it's a miniscule amount of ice and a lot of hassle to move hoses around and monitor.

For years I have been running a 2 stage cooling process. Stage 1 uses tap water to take it from 212 down to the low 100s, then step 2 uses a recirculating ice loop to take it from the low 100s to pitch temps.

 

[ZaraEvans]

I've brewed for years using a three tier system and had a lot of fun brewing some great tasting beers, but now I see that was a lot more labor intensive than my current eBIAB brewing system.

 

[brewman !]

I disagree. You should recirculate your ice water if your return water is colder than your supply water. This is very typical once your wort is below 100F. In the summer my tap water will be 85F, but after the ice water has gone through the plate chiller it has warmed from 32 up to ~50. If i sent that 50 degree water down the drain I have to replace it with 85F tap water, which wastes more ice. Now with that said, the first minute or so it might be worth sending down the drain because it's likely between 85 and 100F, but i usually just recirc with it because it's a miniscule amount of ice and a lot of hassle to move hoses around and monitor.

Given the choice of circulating a set amount of cooling fluid though a CFC OR running the same volume of fluid through ONCE, at a slower rate, the latter will result in the coolest wort.

Recirculating the cooling fluid dramatically reduces the efficiency of a CFC because the temperature of the cooling fluid climbs as the chilling process goes on, resulting in warmer wort.

FWIW, adding salt to the ice water mixture lowers its temp below 32F. Mythbusters did an episode on this.

 

[schematix]

Given the choice of circulating a set amount of cooling fluid though a CFC OR running the same volume of fluid through ONCE, at a slower rate, the latter will result in the coolest wort.

Your statement is correct. However, I content that it is not the best method.

What I am suggesting is that you have an essentially infinite quantity of cold(ish) ground water, and a finite quantity of ice. It would take a LOT of ice to cool a batch to pitching temps in a single pass. It is far easier to use your nearly infinite supply of ground water to take care of your initial cool down phase, and then switch to a recirculating ice water loop. Yes it does use more water than your method, but it uses much less ice, and is much easier to hit very low temps (in the 40s) than trying to single pass (which requires full supply of cold water in the low 30s). This also allows you to easily perform things like hop steeps, and also bring your entire volume of the wort below DMS temps.

On my 10G system I can bring my entire volume of wort from 212 down to 140 is about 3 minutes, regardless of tap water temp (which varies from 40F in the winter to 80F in the summer). The next period from 140 to 100 takes another 5 minutes or so (give or take a min depending upon the tap water temp), at which point the efficiency lowers since my delta T is getting smaller. So i'm running tap water for 8-10 minutes, which is probably about 25-35 gallons (I throttle back to about half rate after the initial period). At that point i switch to recircuting ice water, which is about 8G total.

I think there is some room for optimization here by monitoring source cooling water temp, coolign water return temp, wort return temp and wort temp (which everyone already has with the thermometer on the BK).

EDIT: I am aware that salt drops the ice water temp, but it takes quite a bit to drop it significantly, and the last thing i want on my equipment is a corrosive salt.