HERMS thought

[lwcm]

So I'm kicking around the idea of building a HERMS system in the future and I had a thought/question: Would it be feasible to use a plate chiller (Therminator, Shirron, etc) as a heat exchanger in such a system? It seemed logical to me that if something could cool wort it could also be used to heat it up.

Am I nuts?

 

[alien]

Not nuts at all, it is a heat exchanger after all, and a very efficient one. Show us your plans?

 

[hillhousesawdustco]

Well a plate chiller is indeed a heat exchanger just in the opposite direction. The idea of a herms is generally that you use one pump to push your wort through a coil immersed in a hot liquid. You COULD use a plate chiller but you would need two pumps and a constant source of hot water....your HLT. And I doubt it would be as efficient. Also, there would inevitably bits of grain and whatnot gettin pushed through and plate chillers are notoriously easy to clog. Your idea makes perfect sense but I think the traditional coil-in-hot-water is much easier and time-proven.

So yeah, you're kinda nuts. Not crazy though.

 

[lwcm]

Don't have plans drawn up yet; just thoughts.

With the clogging issues you described I was pondering using a series of progressively fine filter screens. Or perhaps a false bottom over a pickup tube with SS braid over it. MAYBE a third line of filtering if needed.

Would need two pumps but (I think) the HLT feed pump into the exchanger could be something like this: http://www.harborfreight.com/1000-gph-bilge-pump-66095.html Nice and cheap.

The main thrust of the thought is to maximize value by having parts of the brewery do double duty.

 

[biertourist]

Keeping the crap out of the plate chiller is a big deal as is making sure that the inside of the plate chiller is sanitized. Personally I find counter flow chillers much less finicky and easier to clean.

One of these guys right after your pump outlet and before your plate chiller could be a great way to go: http://www.brewershardware.com/FILTER1.html. Having it on the outlet of the pump will help prevent cavitation and it might need the pressure if it does start getting clogged; the plate filters will certainly appreciate the extra flow / pressure.

As you said you'd like to maximize value by having part of the brewery do double duty, you could get an extra set of filter nets for one of these guys and use one with your recirculation mash and then swap out another one for out of the boil kettle to help filter out trub and hops; these guys can even be used as very small hopbacks with whole hops -the whole hops will also help the trub filtering action out of the boil kettle.

Just make sure to recirculate some near boiling wort through the filter and plate heat exchanger for a while to fully sanitize in between using them in the mash and boil kettle or you're REALLY inviting infection. If you get the temp too hot you'll get cavitation in your pump; if you don't get it hot enough it won't sanitize unless you recirculate it for a while -balance is needed.

Adam

 

[bdjohns1]

You could use a plate heat exchanger for circulating your mash liquids, but I probably wouldn't use the kind most of us have that are all brazed together unless I had a very fine filter in place. I'd go with the kind that we have at work handling cream cheese mix (which is about 25% solids). The plates are all hung on a frame with EPDM or BUNA gaskets between each plate, then compressed using jack screws into a stack. They're 3A rated from a sanitary perspective, and can be cleaned in place with enough flow and the right dosages of caustic (for the proteins and fats in cheese mix) and acid (for the minerals). You've got the ability to tear them down for hand cleaning if you screw something up and plug them, although it's not something you want to do regularly.

Obviously, then you've got gaskets as a consumable, and to get them to CIP effectively, I want to say we circulate CIP solution at about 3x the flow rates the system sees in production using an auxiliary booster pump. If you're using a normal March pump in your brew setup, assuming you got a plate with at least 1/2 NPT connections, I'd basically max out the flow through the plate using full flow barbs and a submersible type pump for CIP.

Also not cheap, obviously.

 

[ryane]

The main thrust of the thought is to maximize value by having parts of the brewery do double duty.

but you'd have to have an extra pump? so your getting extra equipment anyway

Also, that pump probably wont work for you, you need something rated to temps higher than you will be using for you HLT, that one is rate to 77F and is 12V

If it were me and regardless of what I was doing I had to have extra equipment, I would go with something that didnt have moving parts/motor, a coil of copper isnt likely to fail unless you have a bonehead moment and kink it really badly

 

[fafrd]

Don't have plans drawn up yet; just thoughts.

With the clogging issues you described I was pondering using a series of progressively fine filter screens. Or perhaps a false bottom over a pickup tube with SS braid over it. MAYBE a third line of filtering if needed.

Would need two pumps but (I think) the HLT feed pump into the exchanger could be something like this: http://www.harborfreight.com/1000-gph-bilge-pump-66095.html Nice and cheap.

The main thrust of the thought is to maximize value by having parts of the brewery do double duty.

lwcm,

did you ever give this idea a try? Are you still considering it? I am considering the same thing (using a DudaDeisal plate chiller for mash recirculation) and would appreciate any additional thoughts you have had on the subject.

From what I have understood:

PROS:
-double duty out of one high-performance plate chiller
-faster stepping times (since reservoir can be far smaller than a full HLT)
-compact
-smaller amount of wort inside than both CF and IC (does not matter much if draining through gravity)
-cost effective

CONS:
-need a filter of some sort to avoid clogging by grain particles (biggest disadvantage versus CFC)
-added cost and cleaning complexity of having a filter (though can be used for wort chilling as well)
-cannot be broken down and inspected (kind of a wash with copper CFC - both have a disadvantage versus IC and SS CFC in this respect)
--need a second pump (same as a CFC and typical HLT recirculation system, so basically a wash)
-the biggie - an absolute nightmare if you allow the plate chiller to get clogged in the middle of mashing - this is the biggest disadvantage versus either CFC of IC (but if you do a good job adding the filter, should never occur )
-more complex / time consuming to clean??? I am not clear on this - only those who have used two or three types are really in a position to comment...

best regards,

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

I would advise against it. I originally used a shirron plate chiller in my CB20 configuration that had constant recirculation during the mash and the shirron would clog pretty easily. The plates are just too small. I even tried using a voile curtain in my mash tun to hold the grains back and that worked better, but not perfectly. Ultimately I built a separate HERMS vessel with 20 ft of Home Depot copper and it works flawlessly.

 

[fafrd]

I would advise against it. I originally used a shirron plate chiller in my CB20 configuration that had constant recirculation during the mash and the shirron would clog pretty easily. The plates are just too small. I even tried using a voile curtain in my mash tun to hold the grains back and that worked better, but not perfectly. Ultimately I built a separate HERMS vessel with 20 ft of Home Depot copper and it works flawlessly.

HarkinBanks,

thanks for the advise. I've found a couple brewer's who are using plate chillers for mash recirculation successfully - both of them are using serious 0.5mm in-line filters to keep any grain particles out of the plate chiller (like this one: http://www.brewershardware.com/FILTER1.html). For the cost of a filter like that, I could cover the cost of a 50' SS coil in my HLT, like most are using, but I'm thinking a filter+plate chiller combo would be more flexible and could serve double duty for both mash recirculation and wort chilling.

It's all 6-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-another when it comes to brewing, but with your experience using a plate chiller for mash recirculation, I'd appreciate any further insight you could provide. Aside from the grain particle clogging issue (which is hopefully resolved with a good in-line filter), are there any other concerns you would have about that set-up? It seems like it should work well for heat transfer, for fast response to steps, and for minimizing the mash liquor volume tied up in the coil/chiller. Any other contrasts you can give based on your experience of recirculating through a plate chiller versus a HERMS coil?

thanks,

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

If you use a filter like that, I think you would be more than ok, but it is quite pricey. I have been eyeing that one for a post boil filter for some time. Your response times will depend on how quickly you can heat and how quickly you can recirculate. With my HERMS, I get about 1 degrees per/min rise for comparison. I can also use my HERMS as a pre-chiller in the summer if I want. Just something to consider. Overall, I did not like my experience with a plate chiller so I moved away from it. It would slow during chilling a lot, but your inline filter would solve that problem. I ultimately went with a chillzilla and love it. That all being said, if you filter well, your idea will work.

 

[fafrd]

If you use a filter like that, I think you would be more than ok, but it is quite pricey. I have been eyeing that one for a post boil filter for some time. Your response times will depend on how quickly you can heat and how quickly you can recirculate. With my HERMS, I get about 1 degrees per/min rise for comparison. I can also use my HERMS as a pre-chiller in the summer if I want. Just something to consider. Overall, I did not like my experience with a plate chiller so I moved away from it. It would slow during chilling a lot, but your inline filter would solve that problem. I ultimately went with a chillzilla and love it. That all being said, if you filter well, your idea will work.

Thanks for the input. Since it is a build-from-scratch, I have the freedom to spend the $s in whatever way I want. Seems like a SS HERMS coil is about the same cost as one of these filters, so filter+plate chiller seems to be a more flexible rig than HERMS coil + plate chiller for about the same total investment.

The plate chiller can support almost any heat transfer rate needed ($s not withstanding so response time will be limited by recirculation rate. At 1 gpm, seems like about 1gpm is about the best you can hope for (for a 10 gallon batch). If recirculation rate can be increased to 1.5gpm or even 2gpm, then mash step times can be increased above 1 degree/minute, but that seems to be pretty challenging if you want to avoid stuck mashes...

I'm thinking a good midpoint would be to design for 1.5gpm recirculation rates - the system should perform fine at slower rates of 1gpm and there is some headroom in case I find a way to maintain higher recirculation rates through the mash.

When you look at the numbers, the chilling capability of plate chillers are d*mn hard to beat: 0.46m^2 of heat exchange surface for $100. If I can find a way to keep that heat exchange surface clog-free and efficient, I think that is the direction I want to go.

Will post some results when I get there (which will be a while )

Thanks again for the inputs,

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

I go at 1.3 gpm for recirculation and get about 1 degree per min, just to compare.

I went with a copper coil for my HERMS and saved some money there and the chillzilla is easier to clean than a plate chiller. I did not care for cleaning the plate chiller, back flushing, and baking it to get any caked materials out.

Just want you to know what you are up against.

 

[fafrd]

I go at 1.3 gpm for recirculation and get about 1 degree per min, just to compare.

I went with a copper coil for my HERMS and saved some money there and the chillzilla is easier to clean than a plate chiller. I did not care for cleaning the plate chiller, back flushing, and baking it to get any caked materials out.

Just want you to know what you are up against.

More helpful data - thanks again. Can you tell me what size mashes you are getting 1.3gpm recirculation rates? 10 lbs, 20lbs???

If I have all of my math correct, if I can recirculate 170 degree mash liquor back into my mash-tun at 1.3gpm, I should be able to raise a 20 pound mash from 152 to 168 in about 11-12 minutes (recirculating about 15 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degrees); this would equate to 1.3 degrees per minute. In any case, your recirculation experience is enough to convince me that I want a plate chiller able to maintain target temps at a recirculation of as much as 1.5 gpm.

It may be an overblown concern, but I have a 3/8" copper CFC and keeping it clean has always bothered me. The baking and chilling of a plate chiller is certainly a PITA, but at least that option is available and hopefully with a good in-line filter it is something that is only needed occasionally...

Thanks again for your inputs - I'll probably try a plate chiller and if I end up deciding that it is too much of a PITA to keep clean, as you have found, I guess I can always move to a CFC or a HERMS coil in a second step.

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

I brew 5 gal batches, collect 7 gallons pre boil with a fly sparge and hit 83% efficiency with regularity. I mash in with 5 gallons for all of my beers and fly sparge until I hit my 7 gallon pre boil volume. So I move about 5 gallons of mash water at 1.3 gallons per minute. I do this with 20 lbs of grain or 10 lbs, so with absorption it is less than 5 gallons but you get the point. 1.3 is my sweet spot for good ramps and not disturbing the grain bed. If I go any higher than 1.3 I disturb the grain bed a bit. Hope this helps!

 

[fafrd]

I brew 5 gal batches, collect 7 gallons pre boil with a fly sparge and hit 83% efficiency with regularity. I mash in with 5 gallons for all of my beers and fly sparge until I hit my 7 gallon pre boil volume. So I move about 5 gallons of mash water at 1.3 gallons per minute. I do this with 20 lbs of grain or 10 lbs, so with absorption it is less than 5 gallons but you get the point. 1.3 is my sweet spot for good ramps and not disturbing the grain bed. If I go any higher than 1.3 I disturb the grain bed a bit. Hope this helps!

Very helpful. Just to make sure I understand, you sometimes mash 20 pounds of grain in only 5 gallons of strike water? From everything I have read, that is about the thickest mash you can get away with, and if you are able to flow at 1.3 gpm through that mash bed, my hat is off to you

If you are brewing on the same set-up and with the same amount of water through that range of grain bills, I'd be very interested to know what differences if performance / characteristics you have found. I would have thought that the max flow rate through a 10 lb grain bill (in 5 gallons) would have been higher than the max flow rate through a 20 lb grain bill - is that not what you have experienced? What is the size of your MLT?

Anyway, with 1.3 gpm flow rates and only 5 gallons of mash liquor, your ramp times must be impressive. Do you mashout and/or ever do any step mashing?

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

I use a 10 gallon megapot insulated with reflectix as my mlt. I also use a march 809 for my pump and can recirculated at 1-1.3 gpm easily throughout my grain bills. I use this as a false bottom: http://www.midwestsupplies.com/12-stainless-steel-false-bottom.html

I experimented with all types of false bottoms from braids to nothing but a voile curtain like when I biab. This one was the best for my setup. I have never had a stuck sparge and this gives me minimal dead loss.

With 5 gallons as my strike I hit between 1-2 qt/lb mash ratios for 10-20 lbs of grain. It just makes it really simple for me. I have a 5 gallon mark on my mash tun so filling is easy. Throw 4 or 5 gallons in my hlt and fly sparge until I collect 7 gallons in my bk. Keep it simple.

I can step mash easily and always do a mashout.

Also, I use 3k watts in my hlt when I ramp up.

 

[fafrd]

I use a 10 gallon megapot insulated with reflectix as my mlt. I also use a march 809 for my pump and can recirculated at 1-1.3 gpm easily throughout my grain bills. I use this as a false bottom: http://www.midwestsupplies.com/12-stainless-steel-false-bottom.html

I experimented with all types of false bottoms from braids to nothing but a voile curtain like when I biab. This one was the best for my setup. I have never had a stuck sparge and this gives me minimal dead loss.

With 5 gallons as my strike I hit between 1-2 qt/lb mash ratios for 10-20 lbs of grain. It just makes it really simple for me. I have a 5 gallon mark on my mash tun so filling is easy. Throw 4 or 5 gallons in my hlt and fly sparge until I collect 7 gallons in my bk. Keep it simple.

I can step mash easily and always do a mashout.

Also, I use 3k watts in my hlt when I ramp up.

Thanks for the additional data. I have been thinking about using the same idea (fixed strike volume independent of grain bill) but have been concerned about 'thick mash' in the range of 1qt/lb. If you are able to get 1.3gpm recirculation rate through 20 lbs of grain in 5 gallons of strike with a March 809, this gives me more confidence that what I was planning will work.

I am planning to use a false bottom similar to yours in terms of holes but 100% diameter of the MLT with no sloped sides, so I will hopefully get performance similar to yours...

With your recirculation rate, I would think you could mashout pretty quickly - 155 to 168 in under 8 minutes with a 10 lb grainbill or about 15 minutes with a 20 lb grainbill - does that sound about right?

Is your 3K element 220V or 110V (dedicated circuit)?

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

Mashout takes about 18-20 mins regardless of grain bill. I am careful not to disturb the grainbed so that may slow me down. I use two separate 120v 1500 watt elements in my hlt. Only one is needed to control the mash via my pid. I use both during ramps. I also use that vessel for a second partigyle boil or a second brew from my bk if I do a biab mash in the bk while I have the herms going so that is why I put 3k watts in there.

 

[fafrd]

Mashout takes about 18-20 mins regardless of grain bill. I am careful not to disturb the grainbed so that may slow me down. I use two separate 120v 1500 watt elements in my hlt. Only one is needed to control the mash via my pid. I use both during ramps. I also use that vessel for a second partigyle boil or a second brew from my bk if I do a biab mash in the bk while I have the herms going so that is why I put 3k watts in there.

I like the idea of the two elements, one for heat control and one for ramping. I'm currently planning to use a single 2000W element for heat control and step using near-boiling water from the gas-fired BK, but if that turns out to be too much of a PITA, my fall-back is to use s set-up like yours.

For your mashout time, I don't understand how mashout can take 18+ minutes for a 5 dollar grainbill. Here is the simple model I used:

10 lbs of grain in 5 gallons (20 quarts) of strike: total mash volume of about 5.333 gallons (23.333 quarts) out of which about 0.833 gallons (3.33 quarts) represent the volume of the grain, 1.25 gallons (5 quarts) represent mash liquor absorbed in the grain, and 3.75 gallons (15 quarts) represent free mash liquor.

Replacing 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 155 degrees F with 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degreed F results in an average mash temperature of 164.6 degrees.

Replacing 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 164.6 degrees F with 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degreed F results in an average mash temperature of 168.1 degrees.

So it should take you a total of about 7.5 gallons of recirculation at 170 degrees F to raise your mash temperature to 168 degrees. If you are recirculating through your mash at a rate of 1.3 gpm, 7.5 gallons should take you less than 6 minutes, so what am I missing?

-fafrd

p.s. with a 20 lb grainbill and only 2.5 gallons of free mash liquor, the same analysis shows that a total of a bit more than 12 gallons of 170 degree mash liquor needs to be recirculate into the mashbed to raise the total mash bed to 168 degrees. At 1.3gpm, this should take a little over 9 minutes...

 

[jeffmeh]

I like the idea of the two elements, one for heat control and one for ramping. I'm currently planning to use a single 2000W element for heat control and step using near-boiling water from the gas-fired BK, but if that turns out to be too much of a PITA, my fall-back is to use s set-up like yours.

For your mashout time, I don't understand how mashout can take 18+ minutes for a 5 dollar grainbill. Here is the simple model I used:

10 lbs of grain in 5 gallons (20 quarts) of strike: total mash volume of about 5.333 gallons (23.333 quarts) out of which about 0.833 gallons (3.33 quarts) represent the volume of the grain, 1.25 gallons (5 quarts) represent mash liquor absorbed in the grain, and 3.75 gallons (15 quarts) represent free mash liquor.

Replacing 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 155 degrees F with 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degreed F results in an average mash temperature of 164.6 degrees.

Replacing 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 164.6 degrees F with 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degreed F results in an average mash temperature of 168.1 degrees.

So it should take you a total of about 7.5 gallons of recirculation at 170 degrees F to raise your mash temperature to 168 degrees. If you are recirculating through your mash at a rate of 1.3 gpm, 7.5 gallons should take you less than 6 minutes, so what am I missing?

-fafrd

p.s. with a 20 lb grainbill and only 2.5 gallons of free mash liquor, the same analysis shows that a total of a bit more than 12 gallons of 170 degree mash liquor needs to be recirculate into the mashbed to raise the total mash bed to 168 degrees. At 1.3gpm, this should take a little over 9 minutes...

Perhaps I am missing something, but if you are mashing at 155F and recirculating through your HERMS, when you start mash out you are at 155F, not instantaneously at 170F. So you are not, "Replacing 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 155 degrees F with 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degrees." Initially, you are replacing 155F with 155F, then the HLT temp will climb, and the mash temp will lag that, until you get to mash out temp and stop.

 

[fafrd]

Perhaps I am missing something, but if you are mashing at 155F and recirculating through your HERMS, when you start mash out you are at 155F, not instantaneously at 170F. So you are not, "Replacing 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 155 degrees F with 3.75 gallons of mash liquor at 170 degrees." Initially, you are replacing 155F with 155F, then the HLT temp will climb, and the mash temp will lag that, until you get to mash out temp and stop.

You are probably correct. I'm on several other threads with brewers who keep their HLT at sparge temperature (170 degree F) always and regulate HERMS temperature during the mash by controlling the flow of 170 degree liquor through the heat exchanger, and my analysis was based on a system where 170 degree HLT liquor is available immediately at the beginning of mashout.

HarkinBanks never made reference to this system and because he has the second heating element for ramps, you are probably correct that he keeps the HLT liquor at mash temperature and then ramps it up to sparge temperate at the beginning of mashout (and so the extra time needed to ramp the HLT temperature would explain the extra time that his mashout requires versus my simple-minded analysis).

 

[HarkinBanks]

Bingo. My hlt water during mash is only a few degrees higher than my mash temp so there is ramp up time to get my hlt water to 170. I use another pump in my hlt to circulate that water to prevent stratification but it does take additional time. Also, with hoses and pumps there is some heat loss as the wort travels through the system.

 

[HarkinBanks]

I know you are pretty set on trying a plate chiller, but for what it's worth, I tested using my chillzilla last night as a hex and it worked flawlessly. You actually sparked this idea so thanks for that. I always thought it was a waste to have my hlt water in my herms just recirculate and do nothing. So now I plan to recirculate it through my chillzilla and do a biab mash in my bk at the same time as I mash in my herms system. This way I can brew two 5 gallon brews at the same time. I tested this idea last week using my Johnson a419 as a separate temp controller for the biab but this will work much better, assuming the mash temps of the beers are the same.

 

[fafrd]

I know you are pretty set on trying a plate chiller, but for what it's worth, I tested using my chillzilla last night as a hex and it worked flawlessly. You actually sparked this idea so thanks for that. I always thought it was a waste to have my hlt water in my herms just recirculate and do nothing. So now I plan to recirculate it through my chillzilla and do a biab mash in my bk at the same time as I mash in my herms system. This way I can brew two 5 gallon brews at the same time. I tested this idea last week using my Johnson a419 as a separate temp controller for the biab but this will work much better, assuming the mash temps of the beers are the same.

Have not pulled the trigger on a plate chiller yet, but after all of this effort, I am probably going to give it a try. My fall-back, in case everyone ends up being right and is a PITS the clean and gets clogged, is to go with a Chillzilla or the stainless CFC from William's Brewing. One thing I like about the design is that the CFC and the PC are functionally equivalent, so upgrading/downgrading should not be a big deal.

That's a long-winded way of saying that I am interested in your system and the results you are getting. So to make sure I understand, while you are doing a standard HERMS using your MLT and your HLT, you are also recirculating the HLT liquor through your Chillzilla as the heat source for a second BIAB mash in your BK.

If your BIAB style is all the grains in a bag or a basket, I can see how when the BK mash is complete, you can remove all of the grains and go to boil, but what are you going to do with the mash-liquor from the MLT (since the BK is full)???

The only advantage I see to a plate chiller over one of the 25' CFCs is for heat transfer efficiency. And since you can always overheat the HLT liquor to make up for any loss of transfer efficiency in the heat exchanger, there really is not going to be any difference during temperature maintenance (once you've got your system dialed-in). The only real difference will be when stepping and only if you are trying to step as fast as possible.

The plate chillers are a lot less expensive and they ought to give some improvement in performance (especially when chilling) with the major drawbacks being potential for clogging and more complex cleaning.

I'm probably going to try to make my system work with a plate chiller and some ideas for keeping particles out with filters - if that ends up not working, moving to a Chillzilla or the stainless equivalent will be my back-up plan.

To that end, I am very interested in any results you get in using your Chillzilla as a heat source for your BAIB mash. Kind of things I expect might crop up, for example, are that if the heat transfer efficiency of your HERMS coil is significantly better or worse than the heat transfer efficiency of your Chillzilla, then the same HLT liquor temperature is going to result in two different mash temperatures. Keep us posted.

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

I have two options when my mashes are complete. I can either start my fly sparge runoff into my original 5 gallon extract pot that I had lying around and wait until the HLT is empty and then transfer the BIAB mash into the HLT. Or, I can runoff the BIAB mash (which can be run off very quickly) into a bucket and pour into the HLT when the HLT is empty. I use my HLT as a second boil kettle because it has 3k watts in there and the HERMS coil functions as a built in chiller when the boil is done. I have my chill water on a splitter and can chill through the HERMS and chillzilla at the same time.

Based on my water only testing last night, the HERMS coil is slightly more efficient than the chillzilla by about 1 degree. Ie, my mash tun read 150 on the dial, HERMS out thermocouple read 150, and my BK water being recirculated read 149. I had a fair amount of hose length going through everything and my basement was about 65 degrees. All in all, I was very pleased with only being 1 degree off.

I previously brewed a double batch like this with my Johnson A419 controlling the mash in the BK only as a single vessel recirculating eBIAB and because of the offset on the A419, I could get 2 degree temp swings on the high and/or low side. I think this setup will be better and makes me feel a lot better knowing that no grain will come in contact with any heating element. I have scorched grain that way in the past and it is very annoying. Now with my PID in control, I know I can leave the basement for the hour mash and nothing bad will happen.

 

[fafrd]

OK - got it - so you really have a 4 vessel set-up - that makes much more sense...

Results comparing the two coils/chillers are impressive. And I suppose you could always play around with insulating the Chillzilla better and/or increasing the length of the uninsulated hosing used with the HERMS coil to try to match them even more perfectly (though 1 degree is pretty darned good right out of the chute

Curious in your experience in comparing thin-mash BIAB and more traditional standard-mash lauter+sparge brewing. Do you notice any difference in the resulting beer? What is the difference you are getting in mash efficiency?

My system should be architected to allow me to play around with all of these options as well, but I am interested in any experience you can share.

And finally, what is the time it takes you for one brew and the time it takes you for a double brew?

-fafrd

 

[HarkinBanks]

Agreed, I was pretty happy with 1 degree. I think it has to do with the fairly slow recirculation of my HLT water through the chillzilla. The March AC-1A-MD pump I am using to recirculate is only 2.3GPM at 4.6 feet so the rate through the chillzilla is a bit slow. I should have measured my flow last night. I used the test to recirculate hot oxy through everything and it is sitting today so can still measure it before I dump it out tonight.

I have been doing BIAB mashes for a while now, including full volume Brutus 20 mashes, and there is no difference for me in the resulting beers with a thinner mash. The only difference in process is efficiency. I get 80-83% efficiency with my HERMS and 65-70% efficiency with BIAB. I buy my grain in bulk so all you really have to do with BIAB is make sure you use enough grain to make up for the lost efficiency.

Time wise, it takes me 6 hours from crush to cleanup for a single brew. Double brew is 6.5 to 7 hours. With my family commitments and my limited days to brew, I'll take that extra hour for an entire second batch of beer any day.

 

[fafrd]

That is impressive (0.5-1 more hour for a second brew) - I'd been planning my system to allow me to brew either 5 gallon or 10 gallon batches, but you are giving me more things to think about...

Aside from the ~15% improvement in efficiency (which I guess typically translates into ~2 more pounds of grain in the mash), is there anything else you prefer about using your HERMS rig and sparging versus doing a BIAB brew?

 

[HarkinBanks]

10 gallon batches never really appealed to me because it takes us (only two drinkers in the house) a while to even kick a 5 gallon keg, and we really like variety. So, the opportunity to brew two different beers in one sitting was really appealing. I have built my system over several years and I always wanted to keep the door open for experimentation. It has definitely been an evolution.

HERMS is a bit cleaner and easier for me, and I take personal pride in hitting my numbers exactly over and over. BIAB tends to be a bit more variable with grain and efficiency with the no sparge. You have to calculate your water and grain exactly. As your mash gets bigger, your efficiency will go down, so it was somewhat frustrating process for me at first. Also BIAB involves pulling the bag and draining over a grate in the pot, messy splashes, and very hot on your hands when you pull that bag out of 170 degree water. Now that I have a 3rd pump and transfer the wort in the way that I do, all I will have to do is drain the BIAB wort into another vessel and that will eliminate pulling the bag from my process. So in short, I think BIAB will be a lot easier now, albeit not pure BIAB, it is a no sparge process with two vessels really. I will still use a bag for my grains so cleanup will be easy, but I won't have to pull it from a hot mash anymore.