BCS vs. PIDs

[Bobby_M]

I was thinking in terms of running a video in on the PC so I can create a TV watching window, BCS area, and something like Beertools pro all on the same screen.

I like where you're going with the WIFI enabled tv though.

 

[Lamp24]

So I have been comtemplating the same exact thing for a while now. However I do not fully understand then needed temperature suensors, I know you can get them from the supplier of the BCS but can you get them anywhere else?

 

[samc]

You can get them elsewhere, but BCS has excellent support and you won't save much going somewhere else.

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

The biggest benefit to the BCS using 10K thermistors (so called because that is what they read at 25 degrees Celsius) is that there are limitless variations of them commercially available... any 10K NTC (res goes down when temp goes up) thermistor will work.. You may still want to calibrate with coefficients given by mfr or with actual data...

$20 for stainless 1/8" MPT probe at digikey:

$4 for 1/4" that you can put in a compression fitting:

$3.10 for:

$3.16 for:

 

[kal]

Good thread Bobby!

I considered BCS myself instead of discrete PIDs so I'll give some ideas from the thought process I went throug a few years ago.

My goals may be different from everyone else so it's important to weigh your own goals against both methods and decide for yourself. There's really no right or wrong answer here.

Industrialized: One of my design goals was to try and build a setup that was as industrial as possible (ie: you should be able to use it on a plant floor in wash down conditions. At least NEMA 12 (if not NEMA 4). I didn't want to have to be careful with it. I didn't want to have to treat it like a "normal" PC and keep it in the opposite corner and wipe down my hands before using it. If I couldn't use it with wet hands, gloved hands, hands covered in sticky grist I didn't want it. (That said, I rarely get dirty when brewing but my hands are often wet). This is possible with both BCS and PIDs. Going BCS would have meant using an industrial ruggedized PC touchscreen or similar (I've designed around these in some of the plant floor systems I built years ago and see the abuse they get). So certainly possible with BCS. The only issue is cost. A proper ruggedized touch screen PC (or screen with the PC in a rugged enclosure) isn't cheap. On the flip side PIDs/switches/lights are easy to get in industrial/water resistant form for cheap.

Interface: I loved the open ended customization available with BCS. You can do anything you want. However the more I designed my brew process (make sure you do this first and have that down pat before deciding *how* to implement the process), the more I realized that the controls and custom user interface I'd be creating would be starting to mimic "old fashioned" dials/displays/controls. BCS is infinitely more flexible but I didn't find that in my case I really needed more than what I could get with PIDs/controls/lights.

Ergonomics: Using a physical switch or button with tactile feedback is always easier for an operator than a touchscreen where the only feedback is visual. So when I design user interfaces, if I can do it with something physical I do that first if possible. If there's too much variety between screens or functions then you have to go touchscreen (I do this with my home theater remote for example). You can mix the two as well sometimes: Use the screen for display only (not a touchscreen) and still use discrete buttons. I've done that in the past with systems where an operator needs to poke at a button every minute. You don't want them doing that to a touchscreen. Give them a physical button. This was an option I considered with BCS. Just use it for display.

Flexibility: BCS wins hands down. If you're not sure of your brewing process or think you may want to experiment and/or change it in the future, BCS lets you add or remove controls easily if you keep it all on the screen. If you design correctly from the start then I really don't think it matters. I've been using my PID based setup for 2 years now and if I had to built it over again I'd do it the same way. Brewing's been around for thousands of years. I doubt that in 10-20 years we'll be doing anything radically different in our process that would make me want to redesign my control panel.

Long term serviceability: I wanted my setup to last me for the rest of my life. (I'm more interested in the craft/art of brewing than tinkering with equipment). I figured I'd spend a year or so designing something that could pretty much brew anything and then just use it forever. So part of my requirement was to make sure that if in 1-2 years (or even 10-20 years) I needed to replace something that it be easy to do. Things like relays, PIDs, switches, etc. are all extremely common parts. They've existed for dozens of years and they will continue to exist because of the tens of thousands of installations around the world running today that rely on them. I'm not married to one particular part or manufacturer. If (for example) a PID dies in 20 years I can pretty much buy any PID from any manufacturer and drop it in as the functionality will be the same. The hole sizes are all standard understood manufacturing sizes (1/16 DIN for PIDs, 23mm for switches/lights, etc). BCS is a custom controller that (AFAIK) is not open source and is owned/run by one person. Support is fantastic, Adam is a great guy, but at the end of the day anything could happen. That gave me pause. If the hardware and software was 100% open source then that may be different, but even open source stuff comes and goes in terms of popularity. Where is BCS going to be in 20 years?

Long term serviceability is also an issue with many of the commercial setups I considered. Take the Sabco BrewMagic setup. It uses a touch-screen PLC controller that runs custom software (patent pending). What happens if that dies down the road and the company is no longer around? The system is dead in the water as the PLC controls absolutely everything.

What about a computer based setup? You could use a flat panel ruggedized PC and capture information and run devices using specialized control software. What if the software isn't kept up to date and in 20 years doesn't work on Windows 22 or whatever people are running then? Even if you keep software backups of everything, what if hardware dies? Drivers for newer hardware may not work with an older operating system. What if the specialized hardware is no longer available? Think of the computer you were running 20 years ago. Had I designed a brewing setup 20 years ago with capture cards it probably would have been done with ISA or VLB boards and/or serial/parallel port technology. None of these are found on computers today so the system would have to be redesigned. The pace of computer technology is increasing so it's only getting worse. You should assume that whatever computer equipment you purchase today will no longer be available in 1-3 years.

Data logging: The anal retentive in me loves the idea of logging temp graphs and all those things that BCS lets you do easily and basically for "free". (No easy way to do this with PIDs). You can track all sorts of things over time. But then I started thinking: What exactly would I "do" with this data? I know how fast a PID based setup ramps. Just use the timer once to time how long it takes to ramp up. Why do I need to know exactly how that curve looks? Does seeing the curve of temp over time really give me any more information that I can use instead of just knowing the start/end points and time? Whenever people talk about all the logging they can do I always ask "So how are you using that data to make your next brew day better?". I couldn't think of one example of how I'd use this extra data so I decided data logging doesn't help me. Your needs may be different however.

Level of automation: This one's a no brainer. If you want or think one day you want to go for semi or complete automation, BCS is the way to go. PID won't give you this. BCS can replace more than just PIDs and can do all the other things you'd want for full automation like pumps/valves/float switches/etc. I didn't want semi or full automation myself so going PID was still in the running. The level of automation is one thing that I didn't actually think about very long at all. I knew right from the start that I didn't want semi or complete automation. I wanted to keep things 'simple' with what can best be described as manual dials and controls for 2 reasons: (1) So that I feel like I'm doing something on brew day (it's a hobby and we want to be part of the process steps instead of having a computer manage them). (2) I felt that the time required to program the automated steps at the start of the brew day could or would likely take just as long as 'manually' changing certain settings when needed. For example, with today's highly modified malts, I mostly do single infusion mashes (not step mashes). The only step I have is to mashout. To do that I hit the "up" button a few times. That's it. BCS could easily automate this but what exactly is that saving?

Remote monitoring/internet support: One feature that BCS is known for is that you can view your BCS controls/screen from anywhere using a web browser. Maybe it's just me, but to this day I still don't understand why I'd want to do that on a properly designed and implemented system. I know how my system behaves so I have no need to monitor it. I have timers with alarms to let me know when something needs to be done. If there's a fear that the system isn't going to run right or needs to be constantly monitored from anywhere then it probably isn't designed right to begin with. Implementing BCS controls as a web server over port 80 like this makes perfect sense of course (you get this feature for 'free'). I just think this is one of those "cool" features that is neat the first time you see it but adds little value at the end of the day.

'Bling' factor: This can most certainly be a design goal. Nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to go for the 'wow' factor then I think both a BCS based setup and manual dial/switch/PID setup can be made to look pretty impressive. A BCS setup can likely be made to look more modern with on screen dials, controls, and process pictures (even animated). A PID based setup can be made to look more industrial/ruggedized with rows and rows of physical dials/lights/switches. Almost 'retro' in a sense. Depends what style you like.

Complexity to implement: Because of the flexibility, BCS has a greater learning curve and you probably need to know a bit more about low voltage electronics if you want to fully harness the power of what it can do. Neither of these was a factor for me (I'm comfortable in this stuff) and looking at your past work I'm sure you'd be comfortable with it too. The same may not be true for others.

Long story short: at the end of day I didn't see how BCS would add any value for *my* design goals and it actually impeded some of *my* goals. I'd end up with something that behaved similarly, would have cost a bit more, and may not have been as serviceable in the long run. The key word here of course is *my*. Set your own goals and decide. I look forward to seeing what you do!

Wow - long post! I'm sure I missed some points!

Kal

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

Thanks Kal, I think you hit a bunch of nails squarely on the head at once...

 

[TravelingBrewer22]

Oh, man... I think I might be re-converting back to PIDs. What's an electric ignorant homebrewer to do?

 

[mavrick1903]

I went PID because I'm doing a single element. so a single PID was cost effective. I would have liked the GUI over the PID, but cost won.

 

[xsists]

Good post Kal.

A quick disclaimer: I do not have either system yet but I do plan to go BCS. Let me just comment on a few of your points.

I have seen plenty of setups that have that industrial feel to them while using BCS. First one that comes to mind is Ohio-Ed's design. All of his setup is in a box with industrial knobs and buttons.

The serviceability point you bring up is a good one though. I had not thought about 20 years down the line if BCS goes belly up in 10 years. I suppose it wouldn't be extremely hard to unplug the BCS and plug PIDs in, if need be (I understand there would be more wiring and what not, but if you are using your BCS as just a replacement for PIDs this shouldn't be too hard).

As far as the computer, I do not believe you HAVE to have a computer near by. My understanding is that you can use the BCS as the controller but you can also control it by switches and buttons if you'd like. BCS can be setup be be multiple PIDs so if you like SOME of the features of BCS but want the simplicity of PIDs you can setup your BCS to run as PIDs.

For the internet control, the reason I want internet control is I can have my GF (who goes home for lunch during the week) fill up my HLT and I can fire it up right as I leave work and by the time I commute home, I can be ready for mashing. This way I can start earlier and finish earlier during the work week.

My main driving force for going with BCS are for these three reasons:
1. Centralized control. I like the thought of having one control unit for EVERYTHING involved in my brewing. I can have it control the brewing in one room, fermentation chamber in another and a kegerator in another. I can connect everything I want to using simple CAT 5 networking cable.
2. I can eventually automate everything, not that I want to now, but who knows in the future.
3. The BCS can grow with me. With the additions of add on boards I can add more and more things that the BCS can do. I have the ability to run multiple brewing systems at once (of course power limiting). What I mean is, I can easily configure the BCS for homebrewing or I can program it for a commerical nano-brewery.

Sure the cost of BCS is initially higher but if you add in extra PIDs and controllers for fermentation chambers and kegerators you can be at the same cost in no time. I originally planned to do PIDs and clone your system. But the more I looked into BCS (and Brewtroller) the more I saw what I could do with the computer system. Not saying PIDs are limited but if I can do everything all in one box, why wouldn't I want to?

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

6 Auber PIDs and a couple timers cost more than a BCS-462... Just Sayin...

 

[wyzazz]

Just something that comes to mind, with the BCS controlling your entire brewery you have a SPoF (Single Point of Failure). While it might be nice to have "One Device to Rule Them All", if that one single device fails for any reason then you can expect things in the brewery to become quite a bit more difficult. Fermenters freezing or overheating, a boil that quits at the 30 minute mark, etc... ...maybe it's not that bad but you get the idea.

If you were to go all in and depend on the BCS to perform most of the functions in your brewery, then I'd pick up a spare at some point.

 

[xsists]

Just something that comes to mind, with the BCS controlling your entire brewery you have a SPoF (Single Point of Failure). While it might be nice to have "One Device to Rule Them All", if that one single device fails for any reason then you can expect things in the brewery to become quite a bit more difficult. Fermenters freezing or overheating, a boil that quits at the 30 minute mark, etc... ...maybe it's not that bad but you get the idea.

If you were to go all in and depend on the BCS to perform most of the functions in your brewery, then I'd pick up a spare at some point.

Another excellent point! Thanks for bringing that up, I'll add that to my list of considerations before purchasing. I hadn't thought of that before.

 

[kal]

I suppose it wouldn't be extremely hard to unplug the BCS and plug PIDs in, if need be (I understand there would be more wiring and what not, but if you are using your BCS as just a replacement for PIDs this shouldn't be too hard).

You'd have to add or completely redo your cabinet/enclosure as you'd need 1/16 DIN sized cutouts to add the PIDs. That to me is basically starting over as you're redoing a cabinet/enclosure (the bulk of the work).

For the internet control, the reason I want internet control is I can have my GF (who goes home for lunch during the week) fill up my HLT and I can fire it up right as I leave work and by the time I commute home, I can be ready for mashing. This way I can start earlier and finish earlier during the work week.

That's a good example of how it's useful. Thanks!

That said, maybe it's just me, but I feel that powerful/dangerous systems like a 30+ amp brewing setup should not be controlled remotely either. The operator should be on location (or at least in the house). It scares me to think that something this powerful is purposely built for remote control.

Not saying PIDs are limited but if I can do everything all in one box, why wouldn't I want to?

Easy: For safety reasons. Having a centralized system on all the time that controls wort creation (the brew house), the fermentation chamber, and kegerator seems dangerous. I made a conscious decision to separate them completely, just in case.

What if you're sitting at work (or even just another room in the house) and decide you want to raise the fermentation temp slightly ... and doing so you mistakely click somewhere on a screen by accident (not even realizing it) and turn on one of the kettle elements? Or have the control through your iPad or something and it falls off the couch and brushes against the screen?

And what if something actually failed? An SSR died closed for example. Again one of the heating elements could all of a sudden fire up in an empty kettle in the middle of the night, or when someone's gone all day to work. If fermentation or kegerator control fails, the worst thing that can happen is loss of temperature control. If the brewing control fails when you're not around, you could burn the house down.

I don't unplug my control panel at the end of the brew day but I do turn it off so that this cannot possibly happen (in addition to safety interlocks). I have to physically be there to turn it on, and I physically turn it off when done. I designed it like this on purpose. It can only be controlled on location. If you have one computer system (the BCS) controlling multiple systems the problem is compounded since you need to leave it on all the time since you're probably fermenting 50% of the time and the kegerator is controlled 100% of the time so you can't turn off the system. That's just inherently dangeous.

You can't just put extra interlock switches in to make sure that dagerous things like pumps and elements won't turn on when you don't mean to because again you're assuming that the operator will remember to use them. Things built for safety can't only be safe if people only remember to use them. It has to be forced upon them. Think about the heavy equipment operator that has to press two buttons at the same time using both hands because the buttons are far enough apart. That's a good example of proper safety design as it ensures they and their hands are outside the machine before it does its job. (Until they duct tape one of the buttons down of course but a well designed system won't allow that because it'll expect open/close action on the switches for every machine cycle).

Kal

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

You'd have to add or completely redo your cabinet/enclosure as you'd need 1/16 DIN sized cutouts to add the PIDs. That to me is basically starting over as you're redoing a cabinet/enclosure (the bulk of the work).

Reworking the panel not needed if you use the external displays for the BCS..

That said, maybe it's just me, but I feel that powerful/dangerous systems like a 30+ amp brewing setup should not be controlled remotely either. The operator should be on location (or at least in the house). It scares me to think that something this powerful is purposely built for remote control.

Agreed, but that is only unsafe if designed and built that way.. I personally have a twist to unlock e-stop, that if it is pressed in, 100% keeps current from flowing to the contactor, and therefore, by design, any High Voltage leaving the panel and to the brewing setup.

Fermentation is not powered by HV leaving the Panel, but a cat5 cable leaving the panel that has 2 SSR signals and 2 probes... unaffected by the e-stop and it's contactor.. the 120VAC circuit is local to the fermenters.


Modern industry is embracing controllers that are essentially fancy BCS's, but then of course you get that quote from Siemens for $70,000 to control 14 fermenters and have web access to change things...


In the end, different strokes for different folks...
I like my BCS, I could brew with the PID's I have, but chose the BCS...

Anyone not sure, build a small PID system, you can always sell components/system for nearly what you have in it to a fellow homebrewer if you buy smart...

 

[kal]

Reworking the panel not needed if you use the external displays for the BCS.

True. Assuming they're the same size cutout as as the PIDs (usually 1/16 DIN).

Agreed, but that is only unsafe if designed and built that way.. I personally have a twist to unlock e-stop, that if it is pressed in, 100% keeps current from flowing to the contactor, and therefore, by design, any High Voltage leaving the panel and to the brewing setup.

That makes sense. With a good design like that where the high current stuff is truly 100% isolated and off by physical switch I'd feel ok with leaving the rest of it on all the time.

I'm still not sure I'd be comfortable doing anything high current remotely however without a lot of safety features built in ...

Anyone not sure, build a small PID system, you can always sell components/system for nearly what you have in it to a fellow homebrewer if you buy smart...

Yup. Especially if you sell it all assembled. People not handy would jump on it and pay full price I'm sure. You'd be out nothing other than the time you originally spent building.

The other option (the one that I'm sure Bobby will be doing) is to just research until you know exactly what your goals are and then build a big PID or BCS based system that exactly matches those goals.

Kal

 

[bad coffee]

I went BCS.
A: Cashola: Cheaper than getting the PID's.
B: Repeat brews. If I brew a kickass beer and want to re-create it, the file is there.
C: Size. One small control box vs 3-5 PID's. (Actually 2 boxes the way it will be set up.)
D: Expandability. From the start I'm using 8/18 outs, 5/8 inputs, and 8/8 temps. I have two temps dedicated for my ferm chamber and one for ambient temp, they're easy to give up when I need more.

Eventually I'll build the second part of the controller box. That part will have waterproof buttons, switches, and indicators. Most commands/buttons will be controlled physically. If I'm sitting on the couch during the boil and it's time to turn on the pump, I'll just pull out the iphone.

Customer service was great. I had a few small issues that they handled pretty quickly.

Go for the BCS.

B

 

[ClaudiusB]

BCS did not exist when I designed my system.
I went with a PLC, Ethernet card and PID's.
The PID's are mounted at each station and function as remote thermometers (4-20mA out) for the PLC.
In case of PLC failure the PID's are switched to local mode and control the process.
Works very well, lost my PLC two months ago.


Cheers,
ClaudiusB

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

BCS did not exist when I designed my system.
I went with a PLC, Ethernet card and PID's.
The PID's are mounted at each station and function as remote thermometers (4-20mA out) for the PLC.
In case of PLC failure the PID's are switched to local mode and control the process.
Works very well, lost my PLC two months ago.


Cheers,
ClaudiusB

4-20mA and RTD capability are the only new features I really could ask for in the next generation of BCS..

 

[weirdboy]

I went BCS.
A: Cashola: Cheaper than getting the PID's.

Is it really? Maybe I'm just not seeing where the price savings is coming from, but a BCS-460 ($187) is more expensive that 4 Auber 2532s ($45.50 each) as far as I can tell.

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

Did you add in timers? Most people use 1-2 timers in their system, Auber ASL-51's are $34.50 each you can have way more than 2 in the BCS, but we will go with that.. 4x$45.50 + 2x$34.50 = $182+ $69 = $251

 

[EarthBound]

Did you add in timers? Most people use 1-2 timers in their system, Auber ASL-51's are $34.50 each you can have way more than 2 in the BCS, but we will go with that.. 4x$45.50 + 2x$34.50 = $182+ $69 = $251

Why would someone have 4 PIDs? I thought you would only need 3 at the most.

Why would someone have 2 timers?

 

[weirdboy]

Yeah I am not really feeling the timers thing. I can see that programming in a step mash or something in the BCS is potentially more convenient than doing it manually with a PID, but I don't need yet another timing device built into my control panel to tell me when to do something.

Personally for my system, I cannot see ever needing more than 2 PIDs. There isn't a practical way for me to link a single BCS into fermentation control as well as HLT/MLT just due to the physical location of stuff. But, I understand my situation does not apply to everyone else. I am just curious how the BCS is a cheaper option for most people because as near as I can tell it is way overkill for most people's systems. I am not begrudging folks that use it or anything like that; I just don't see cost being one of the factors that swings in favor of using a BCS.

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

Timers can do it for you, not just tell you when to do something...

My BCS runs my mash for an 60 minutes at 154 or whatever I am mashing at, then it changes the setpoint to 168 and heats to mash-out and then the alarm tells me it is done.. Having that sort of accuracy from one mash to the next is next to impossible without babysitting your brew..

Maybe I am the only one who forgets to mark the time when I actually mash-in, but if you want to make repeatable brews, and have time to document your gravity, PH, volume readings, and other things, like have a conversation with friends, the functionality of the BCS is much more than worth the price, let alone the small upcharge over discrete PID's and timers. If you don't need a timer, that is great... I enjoy the extra time it gives me in my brewday

You only have 2 PID's, great... which one of these do you omit? HLT? RIMS/HERMS? BK?

Cannot combine the fermentation into the same control? You cannot run a piece of Cat5 wire between your brew and fermentation panels? 8 conductors can be used for 2 temp probes and 2 SSR leads, and the SSR leads switch the local power at the fermentation panel on and off for the fermentation control...

how do you do lagers, specifically, how do you ramp temps the same for two batches, if I wanted to do that without the BCS, I would have to plan my whole schedule around a single beer, which I prefer not to do... I need time for other beer!

 

[weirdboy]

BK does not need a temp controller.

No, I cannot run Cat5.

If you mean, how do I ferment lagers, I ferment them at 48-50F or so in a swamp cooler, then I stick them in the kegerator in a corny to lager.

If you mean how would I use a PID to ramp temps, I just change the temperature at the appropriate time.


I am aware you can program all this stuff into the BCS. I even mentioned it in my post. I am not trying to argue that the BCS isn't a nice device and convenient and all that. I might even buy one instead of PIDs for some of the reasons mentioned. I merely do not see "cost" as an argument in favor of the BCS.

 

[xsists]

The cost savings is when you are looking at controlling multiple aspects of your brewing. HLT, BK, some people use a PID to monitor temps in MLT, ferm chamber, keezer. Right there is 5 PIDs @ $45.50 = $227.50 add in a timer (I would like one) $34.50 = $262. That is more than the base BCS-460. I understand that automation and internet connectivity are not for everyone, but I'd like those features. This is just an outline of the "cost" argument so you can see it.

In the end, I'm sure you can build a simple PID system for way less than I plan on spending on my BCS system, but then it's just that. A simple PID system. To me, I want more thus I am going with BCS.

 

[cyberbackpacker]

Two ferm chambers, each with a dual stage controller- ~$27 each for ebay controllers = 54
Kegerator with temp controller- $27
Lagering chamber with dual controller- ~$54
Beer cellar with dual controller- $27
MLT/BK control- PID ~$40

That is a real minimal and conservative overview of my set-up, and a very modest estimate on what my set-up would need to do what I ask of it with a BCS.

So ~$200 and not the same level of accessibility and utility (output controls, data-logging, etc., etc.) I was/am looking for. So the cost, again for me and my desires, is also a plus, or at least a non-factor.

That said, the BCS is fantastic and I have never experienced any buyers remorse over it, even as new setups pop-up and the brewtroller (which was just released when I bought the BCS) has expanded/evolved.

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

BK does not need a temp controller.

If you mean, how do I ferment lagers, I ferment them at 48-50F or so in a swamp cooler, then I stick them in the kegerator in a corny to lager.

If you mean how would I use a PID to ramp temps, I just change the temperature at the appropriate time.

Changing the temp on a PID is not really a 'ramp', unless you get a special PID that does a 'ramp'.. I guess you could do 1 degree per x number of hours... (if you wanted to be home all the time... )

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

Bottom line is that for pretty much any given price of controls above the cost of the lower model BCS-460, you can control more things with greater flexibility than you can with discrete PID's. If you want a 1 PID, 1 SSR, 2 contactor solution, you will be cheaper with a PID... If you want 2 PID's, you would be cheaper with them.. However, if you have 4 temps (I cannot think of many brewers that would not like to monitor 4 temperatures) and even 1 timer, the BCS instantly becomes the cheaper alternative and includes a HUGE amount of automation/logging/web access potential...

 

[xsists]

Do you work for ECC or something? I am not sure why you keep arguing with me.

Why do you keep arguing with him?

The point of the thread is for both sides of the debate to discuss PIDs vs BCS (pros and cons of both). You're the one that said you couldn't see the cost argument and he is just stating what the cost argument is.

I'm sure he is just a happy BCS user as you are a happy PID user. Didn't Bobby ask for peoples opinion? Or was he asking for the opinion of PID users only?

 

[P-J]

Why do you keep arguing with him?

The point of the thread is for both sides of the debate to discuss PIDs vs BCS (pros and cons of both). You're the one that said you couldn't see the cost argument and he is just stating what the cost argument is.

I'm sure he is just a happy BCS user as you are a happy PID user. Didn't Bobby ask for peoples opinion? Or was he asking for the opinion of PID users only?

EXCELLENT!

Another example of the BS 'stuff' posted here.

 

[jsguitar]

I think this is a good discussion. I'm currently very happy with my single PID system as it fits my needs well for the moment, but I could see using a BCS as a way to integrate the entire brewery in the future. I think the BCS advocates have made some excellent points regarding it's flexibility.

 

[Bobby_M]

Part of the benefit of this whole discussion is that there are some people who chose one over the other because they may not have even considered alternatives. Others, like me, know there are choices with pros and cons and want to hear WHY people chose what they chose. Those reasons may not apply to everyone and I'll know that when I see it.

I think it's appropriate to say that the BCS can end up being cheaper if you were to try to duplicate its port capacity on the two systems if you need all the flexibility it can offer.

Did anyone mention the fact that a collection of PIDs are generally unaware of each other's states while the BCS can make choices conditionally? That is true isn't it? I thought I read something about being able to control based on temp averaging and stuff like that.

 

[JLo]

I have the BCS 462, and have implemented a clone of Kal's Electric Brewery, with the exception of the control panel. I kept the pumps manual, have 4 thermometers and have 2 SSR controled 240V elements.

A couple of observations so far:
1) I'm running pre-releases of Windows 8 and the JavaScript gets kinda wonky from time to time. As a precaution I disconnect any elements that are not submerged. I have had 2 times where the computer & BCS combo had some rendering errors and in manual mode I would have fried an element if I had not disconnected them. Who knows how browsers interact with the software in a few years.
2) 3 way switches [On | Off | BCS Controlled] is the way to go. This way you can run the system manually even if your computer(s) is/are tied up.
3) These PID Display Modules for Temperature seem rather intriguing.
4) I went wireless with the BCS 462, this ran me a few extra dollars, especially when adding in the control panel and other goodies.
5) I really enjoy setting a temperature and timer on the BCS, so far I have 3 repeatable programs that were pretty simple to write. a) 3 hour ramp mash from 100 to 170, b) Single Infusion 156, c) Double Decoction step mash. It's nice to know that I can treat the mash the same way time over time.

 

[clearwaterbrewer]

Do you work for ECC or something? I am not sure why you keep arguing with me.

no, I do not... The title does have a 'vs.' in it, and this is a forum...

I have used PIDs, I still have then in 2 espresso machines and a couple more in a box with other parts like A-B Pico controllers... I have used both devices in brewing.. I think that for what many brewers have goals of, the BCS can be a more cost effective approach once you are controlling and monitoring 4 temps... others do also...

How many on here had a BCS and then went back to PID?

 

[bolts]

I've been having the same dilemma. My thoughts generally echo some of those in this thread.

I'm not interested in complete automation (temp ramps would be nice), nor am I interested in sharing duties with fermentation or a keezer (those are already done with thermostate/Love controller). I also really don't want to have to use a PC or iPad/Touch to view/control the BCS -- half the fun for me is not having to spend yet more time on electronics/computers (day job).

I like the idea of (perceived) robustness and serviceability of a solution based on industry controls and I don't really want to fidget with software/firmware (which is funny because I'm a software engineer).

The one thing I'm trying to integrate into a setup like Kal's is rich data logging (and this is where the BCS or Arduino would shine). I'm pretty sure I can do this with an (Net/Ar)duino acting as an interposer to the PID. Basically, read the RTD value in (as resistance) and echo it back out (in mV) to the PID. May be hard to do this accurately though. I can always bypass it though.

My two cents.

 

[Bobby_M]

I follow your points there but I think more industrial controls are going the way of a fully integrated computer control system. I think the desire to data log points briskly to the BCS.

Something I don't think I've ever read about the BCS but would be interesting to know is how manual could you go while still having predefined states defined in the BCS? I'll explain what I'm asking.. Is it possible to program states like "heat strike" "sacc rest" "heat sparge" etc from a PC in the house, then use some kind of STATE ADVANCE button in the control panel? Using the PID style temp displays in addition to this seems like a great way to have the flexibility without having to touch a delicate piece of electronics with dripping wet hands.

 

[xsists]

You can set buttons to be active with BCS. For instance you can setup a "next step" button on an enclosure and just know where you are in your steps. Say you set it up to heat strike water. Once the strike water is at a certain temp a light could turn on in your panel prompting you to move the lines to the correct config and press a next step button. The next step button would send a signal to the BCS which would make the BCS go to the next step in the process and it could then turn on the pumps and move over the strike water until you hit the button to stop it.

Another way would be to leave the pumps be manually controlled and you can turn them on and off. I think the way I am going to implement it is to have the 3 way switches as discussed earlier. On | Off | Auto (BCS) That way I can manually brew or have it automatically run.

 

[bolts]

I follow your points there but I think more industrial controls are going the way of a fully integrated computer control system. I think the desire to data log points briskly to the BCS.

Yeah, hence my dilemma... this is the only thing hanging me up. The desire for data logging is less about reproducibility, than it is about "how different was that from last time" (and who doesn't like charts).

 

[xsists]

Yeah, hence my dilemma... this is the only thing hanging me up. The desire for data logging is less about reproducibility, than it is about "how different was that from last time" (and who doesn't like charts).

You know, I was thinking about how data logging would actually be useful and this right here is why. I can see if you try to reproduce a brew and something tastes different. With the data from the data log, you can compare them and rule out or find that the brewing (mash/boil) was the culprit or not. I hadn't thought of this before. Thanks!

 

[PLOVE]

Great discussion! Kudos for keeping the dialog fresh and (mostly) conversational. There are obviously pros and cons with both approaches, but it seems clear that folks on both sides of the debate are pretty happy with their rigs. After much debate I've decided to head down the BCS road. I don't want complete automation (i.e. no automated valves), but I like the flexibility and expandability you get for $200 with a 460. So, far I've built a control box that uses three way switches (on/off/automation) to actuate two pumps and two 5500W heating elements. As some of you have pointed out, manual-override is a plus. I also added the now famous P-J "E-stop" to trip my 50Amp GFI spa disconnect. Next thing to do is to purchase a BCS-460 (you'll see a cardboard mock-up of a BCS with 10-pin connectors mounted on the right-hand side of the box), and wireless bridge router to polish things off.

Pics are just there to wet your appetites. . . . Promise I'll start a thread when I finished keggle conversion. :rockin:

PS Anyone care to guess what two copper colored coils below the SSRs are for? I'll give you a hint - think induction

Pete