Sounds like the Chinese New Years go ya?
Boil kettle condenser - no overhead ventilation needed
- Thread starter BrunDog
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Sounds like the Chinese New Years go ya?
It stings me every darn year. I walk a fine line between overbuying and running out right in the middle of their party.
About the smell:
I brewed on Sunday and tried something new to see if I could reduce the smell. I drain the effluent into a PVC pipe and down the drain. I stuffed a rag in the top to try to seal it.
I felt that it reduced the odor a fair amount but it was still significant. However, when I opened the garage doors after brewing to air out the space it was better than the previous time.
I poked my head down under the sink and it seemed clear to me that this is where the odor seems to mostly be coming from.
I'm going to try a few other variants; I probably can seal that pipe better than I did. I didn't put a plug in the sink drain and it's possible I had some odor coming back up from the P-trap. I may try some foam sealer to seal up the top.
*********
Here's one other question: I'm using Fermcap-S to prevent boilovers. Any chance this is part of what's producing the smell? Is there an alternative to using Fermcap that would also prevent boilovers?
I brewed on Sunday and tried something new to see if I could reduce the smell. I drain the effluent into a PVC pipe and down the drain. I stuffed a rag in the top to try to seal it.
I felt that it reduced the odor a fair amount but it was still significant. However, when I opened the garage doors after brewing to air out the space it was better than the previous time.
I poked my head down under the sink and it seemed clear to me that this is where the odor seems to mostly be coming from.
I'm going to try a few other variants; I probably can seal that pipe better than I did. I didn't put a plug in the sink drain and it's possible I had some odor coming back up from the P-trap. I may try some foam sealer to seal up the top.
*********
Here's one other question: I'm using Fermcap-S to prevent boilovers. Any chance this is part of what's producing the smell? Is there an alternative to using Fermcap that would also prevent boilovers?
Observation!
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 10
Brundog, did you go with a solder-on TC ferrule to avoid interference with the steamer basket? I have the same Bayou Classic kettle and I'm curious if there would be enough space between the kettle inner wall and the steamer basket to accommodate a weldless ferrule.
AF1HomeBrew
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2015
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 1,478
The results of my test using a MoreBeer Blonde Ale kit. Pretty tasty for what it is. Tried to use my version of the SteamSlayer on a 3 batch G.Strong Helle's brewsession, but it was a little too much wort in my kettle.
![Craft A Brew - Safale BE-256 Yeast - Fermentis - Belgian Ale Dry Yeast - For Belgian & Strong Ales - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [3 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51bcKEwQmWL._SL500_.jpg)
OP
OP
I don’t use the basket but yes I used a solder-on ferrule, so there is nothing inside. I actually epoxied (food and temp safe) it to the kettle as it would have been difficult to solder at that point.
Ridenour64
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 249
I brewed Saturday using my setup for the first time. I did not notice any unpleasant odors. My hose was running to a bucket right under my brew table so there was nothing sealing off vapors. I did not use any ingredients for preventing boil overs. So maybe?
With that being said, I had 7 gallons in a 15 gallon spike kettle and there was a “boil over” that all ran down the steam hose. Another benefit of this. I think I was boiling with too much power to the element.
As many have reported in this thread, the power to maintain a boil is much less than with an open kettle, typically 50-60%. So if you didn't turn down the power during the boil, the overly vigorous "boil over" is expected.
Next time, you have to carefully crack the lid to observe the boil vigor to determine the correct power level. Be very careful to not burn yourself from the released steam when you check.
Hmmm....everybody who's had that odor is hoping you figured something out...
No Fermcap-S. Hmmm....
That'll have to be my next experiment. I had thought about sealing off the drain pipe into which the effluent flows, but maybe no Fermcap-S should be the next thing.
I have a 5500-watt element in a 10-gallon kettle, with about 6.5 gallons of wort typically. I'm moving toward a gentler boil given some of the current theory on heat stress during the boil.
<thinking out loud> Perhaps one way to avoid boilovers, besides a low intensity boil, is to turn down the power to the element when hops are added....
I've had the power percentage as low as 29 percent during the boil and it's still kicking out enough steam for the steamslayer to work. I could go lower, I'm sure, thinking that perhaps 20 percent or even less would give me a decent simmer.
BTW, thanks for trying this.
I just finished a brew day using the steam slayer. Since @Ridenour64 had done his brew day without Fermcap-S, I decided I'd do the same thing.
There still was an odor, but not nearly as bad as before. Since I never did a brew day indoors prior to using the steam slayer, I can't say what it would have been like. There still was a hop odor, but not a bad one.
So, perhaps Fermcap-S is to blame. Of course, different hops, different amounts, could also be the culprit, but given the results today, next time I'll also omit Fermcap-S, plus I'll seal off the effluent hose in the pipe it drains in.
The only doubt I have is that I had fewer hops in this recipe. It's an amber, half an ounce at 60 minutes, half an ounce at 10 minutes, half an ounce at flameout.
But the nature of the odor changed, which still leads me to believe Fermcap is the culprit.
There still was an odor, but not nearly as bad as before. Since I never did a brew day indoors prior to using the steam slayer, I can't say what it would have been like. There still was a hop odor, but not a bad one.
So, perhaps Fermcap-S is to blame. Of course, different hops, different amounts, could also be the culprit, but given the results today, next time I'll also omit Fermcap-S, plus I'll seal off the effluent hose in the pipe it drains in.
The only doubt I have is that I had fewer hops in this recipe. It's an amber, half an ounce at 60 minutes, half an ounce at 10 minutes, half an ounce at flameout.
But the nature of the odor changed, which still leads me to believe Fermcap is the culprit.
beermaestro
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 6
What are the thoughts on trying something like this? I was thinking that the steam could pass through the smaller inner tubes and hooking this up to my glycol chiller to run through the inside of larger tube. This type of condenser is used in larger applications like power plants where they condense their steam from their combustion turbine and then recirculate and reheat it for the steam turbine. This would eliminate the use of having a water spray system. Would the glycol chiller provide enough cooling to condense the steam and provide the vacuum?
Attachments
ancientmariner52
Well-Known Member
Certainly you could make it work. Would it have any advantage over the steam slayer? Just off the top of my head, I'd say no.
My experience is limited to steam propulsion plants on board ship. Lots of auxiliary machinery required to support the condenser systems. Steam air ejector to initially create the vacuum. Condensate pump, because you can't gravity drain from a vacuum chamber. Probably other things I can't recall right now.
Overall, for our small scale operations, the steam slayer would be hard to beat. Just my two cent's worth.
There are variables to consider. In the pics you show I can't see where either the steam or the glycol would flow--the tubes look like they are sealed tightly to each other--but if there was space between them, I think it would work.
The determining factors would be how quickly the glycol system could recover, the rate of flow of the glycol through the tubes, and the amount of steam being produced. The steam from a rolling boil has a lot more heat energy produced for the steam slayer to cool than a simmer.
You could calculate the number of BTUs needed, I think--In my system, with a fairly rigorous boil, the effluent was about 140 degrees. I was boiling off 1 gallon per hour, and the water spray is about 9 gph. The water starts out about 50 degrees or so. It takes a BTU to raise a pound of water 1 degree fahrenheit (about--that's at 39 degrees IIRC, but close enough for purposes here). Ten gallons is 84.3 pounds. Nine gallons is 75.06 pounds.
This is where it's early, I haven't had enough coffee, and I'm sure there's an engineer out there who can more accurately figure this out, but I'm thinking that if 75.06 pounds of water is raised in temperature from 50 to 140, that would be a capture of (75.06 pounds of water x 90 degrees of temp change) of 6755 BTUs of energy.
Engineers, is that at least in the ballpark? Or has the lack of coffee sapped my brainpower?
So my thinking (such as it is) is that you'd need at least 6755 BTUs of glycol cooling power to do this, spread out over an hour's time. I have a Penguin chiller; at 28 degrees it's rated at 2850 BTUs (presumably per hour), at 38 degrees it's rated at 3580 BTUs; what would it be at 200 degrees? It recovers very, VERY fast, so I'm guessing that chiller would produce enough cooling (by far, actually) to be able to do this, given proper geometry of the steam slayer and tubing.
I'm with @ancientmariner52 on this; it seems like a Rube Goldberg way of accomplishing what the steam slayer already does. It would save 9 gallons of water, and if you have no source of water it would work where otherwise nothing would, but how would the added complication make it a better option?
Interesting idea, though.
beermaestro
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 6
I actually have the penguin glycol chiller and it sits on the bottom shelf of my brewing stand which is why I had the idea to use that verses cooling water. If using the steam slayer with spray nozzle, I’d have to use a garden hose from outside to run into my garage. Although this is not a big deal to do. I work for a power company and was sitting through some training of how a natural gas combined cycle power plant operates and that is where I had the idea of using The condenser tube. The tube I have pictured above has the smaller tubes inside with space around them for the cooling water/glycol to flow while the steam passes through the inner tubes, or vice versa depending on how you hook it up. Could you collect the condensate as it runs out of the condenser and use that as your cleaning water? Like it has been said, not sure this would be any better than what is already available but just a thought.
You could, but how much do you think you'd collect? Only the amount of the boiloff minus whatever evaporates.
Extending the idea further, could you run the steam through any kind of a condenser--similar to what is used with moonshine stills--sitting in a bucket of icewater? I don't know, again depends on the variables.
With problems like this it can be helpful to step back and reframe the question. The fundamental question isn't how to get liquid cooling to condense the steam, the question is how to cool that steam.
Multiple ways to do that:
1. Use water in the steam slayer--the standard
2. Use a tube arrangement cooled by a glycol solution, as per your idea
3. Run the steam through a barrel of water in which a worm is immersed to condense the water.
4. Put a coil around a long tube through which the steam travels, with the coil cooled with glycol solution.
5. Thinking out loud, since in doing this it's in an outside garage, and presumably it's cold outside, I'd think a barrel in which a coil through which the steam passes was immersed would contain pretty cold water. That would work until the steam heated up the water to where it wasn't condensing enough. To combat that, perhaps you put a secondary coil in that barrel fed by the glycol solution to keep that water cold enough to condense.
6. ????? other ways of which I'm sure there are a few....
For starters, I know that the load on the glycol system would cost more in electricity and wear and tear than 10 gal of tap water. It would also render your glycol useless fir fermentation control during boiling as it would be too hot. Finally, people are finding the diluted waste water to smell bad. What do you think the concentrate would smell like?
I think the issue is a lack of a readily-accessible water source. As far as cost....if you had something like the Penguin, I'd be surprised if you spent more than 60 cents for an hour of cooling. Those things are FAST in recovery.
But agreed, water is much more elegant as a solution.
OP
OP
You could absolutely use a HEX like this for a closed-loop system. I would pipe the steam via the shell, not the tubes, as the restriction is less. If I were to do it, I would not use a powered chiller - though you could if it had enough oomph (technical term). I would just use a recirculating water loop into a fan and radiator. It would need be pretty big and you'd need to calculate the anticipated temp differential into the cooling liquid to determine the size needed (ambient temp really matters too), so it could be done. I created the homebrew condenser since it was inexpensive and easy to implement, but have also said for those who were really water-waste sensitive, we could create a closed-loop system - it would just take a brave soul, some money and patience.
have said this all along in hopes some brave soul who was really
Wizard_of_Frobozz
Well-Known Member
I'll chime in since heat transfer is my professional occupation. I'm in agreement that it COULD be done, but you'd be hard pressed to beat the steam slayer.
The reason the steam slayer is so effective is that the water spray is in direct contact with the steam, so it quickly transfers the heat energy from the steam, and thus condenses the steam.
In a closed loop heat exchanger, the most significant factor in heat transfer is the surface area of the heat exchanger. The heat has to flow from the steam, through the metal wall of the heat exchanger (tube or plate, depending on the design). The more surface area of that wall, the more opportunity the heat has to flow out of the steam and into the cooling fluid. Steam contains a LOT of heat energy, so you need a LOT of surface area to make it work. In other words, you'd need something a LOT bigger than the steam slayer to effectively condense the steam.
Now, that being said, I definitely see the desire to conserve water and keep the system closed loop if you live in an area where water conservation is important. I think an elegant solution in this case would be to have a large drum full of water sitting at room temperature. Pump it through the heat exchanger during the boil, and capture the hot water for cleaning. Single pass and make use of the heat. Another option would be to let that water/glycol cool off naturally between brew days. You'd have to prevent bacteria growth in the fluid, but it could work.
I would not personally try to chill the fluid, since that requires electricity and you really don't get that much benefit. Water is roughly 1 btu/lb/F, so if you chill the fluid down to say 25F from 70F, that's only 45 btu's/lb. To condense the steam, you have to remove 970 btu/lb from the steam, so chilling down the fluid only gives you a 4.6% improvement in heat removal...but that's assuming the heat exchanger is 100% efficient, which a closed loop heat exchanger is definitely NOT; in practical terms, you'd probably only get about 1-2% improvement by chilling the fluid. I would highly doubt you could make that cost-effective or worth the extra complexity of a chilling system. For some people, the complexity is what makes it fun, so I completely understand if that's not a concern...
Wizard_of_Frobozz
Well-Known Member
Your math is not the whole story. You are correctly calculating the heat required to raise the water spray from 50F to 140F BUT you are also adding the condensed steam to that water stream, so it doesn't cover the entire system. You have to add the 1 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal of condensed steam to the mix, the latent heat removed by condensing, and the sensible heat removed to bring it down from 212F to 140F.
You really don't need to do all that however. It's pretty easy to calculate how much heat you need to remove in order to condense the steam:
1 lb of 212F steam = 970 btu's (heat of vaporization of water)
1 gal of water = 8.3 lbs (yes, this changes depending on temperature, but it's close enough...)
If you boil off one gallon during the boil, you need 8.3 x 970 = 8,051 btu's.
Ideally, the steam slayer effluent only needs to be below boiling temperature - any extra means you are flowing more water than you need to. Practically, you probably want it a good amount cooler to make it safer to handle/dispose of. I've seen PVC drain lines melt because 200F+ condensate was put down it for a long time.
I also think the traditional 1 gal/hour boil off rate is way off. Most people that are using the steam slayer are finding the boil rates are much lower, which makes sense, because you'd never be able to condense 8.3 lbs of steam in an hour and get the effluent at 140F with only 6755 btu's.
About the kind of response I'd expected.
In other words: I was close, wasn't I?
Wizard_of_Frobozz
Well-Known Member
About the kind of response I'd expected.
In other words: I was close, wasn't I?
Yes, you were close. Thermodynamics is tricky!
OP
OP
You could also spray water, then cool the whole lot through a big radiator. Still more hardware & headache to save a few gallons.
ancientmariner52
Well-Known Member
The laws of thermodynamics, per Robert Heinlein. (I think)
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.
beermaestro
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 6
Well, I'm convinced! Seems there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Thought it may be another way to tackle the same problem but definitely seems like the steam slayer is hard to beat in this instance. On another note though, my wife and I are in the process of working with a home designer and my wife has graciously agreed to let me have a brew room in the basement. Super excited about this by the way! However the question seems to me, which method of steam management is best. Not really concerned with the cost at this point, not saying money is no object though. I am just curious, if being able to design it from the get go, is a hood/fan ventilation to the outside method better than the steam slayer method since this can be planned for and installed from the get go?
ancientmariner52
Well-Known Member
If I were starting with a clean sheet of paper, I'd provide for both. I don't see a down side to good ventilation, the issues come with trying to retrofit it. The plumbing for the steam slayer is minimal, so why not? I'm trying to squeeze a brewery into my too-small laundry room, so I'm quite jealous!
Wizard_of_Frobozz
Well-Known Member
I think a lot depends on the climate where you live. If you go with ventilation, you are pulling air from the outside into your room, and then exhausting it back outside. If air goes out, it must be coming in somewhere. Is that air too hot or too cold? Do you have to cool it down or heat it up?
For me, I live in an area where the summer is very humid, and the winters can get down into the low teens. The big advantage of electric brewing indoors is to eliminate the weather issues while brewing. If you are bringing that weather inside because of ventilation, then it kind of defeats the purpose in my mind. The steam slayer is a great way to avoid having to spend a lot of energy heating and cooling that make-up air.
ancientmariner52
Well-Known Member
My local climate is just as you describe. I've always enjoyed brewing outdoors in the spring and fall, but it's often pure misery in summer and winter. That's why I'd like to have both options available. If I could only choose one, it would be the condenser, since it is good regardless of weather.
Similar threads
