Wind Shields needed for garage brewing?

[ghart999]

So I am building a single tier stand using the below high pressure propane burners.

I have not done any kind of wind shield for them as I always brew in the garage. I obviously don't get wind in there, which is the main reason. But am I missing out on something anyway? Do they somehow direct all the heat straight up?

If I do use some, what diameter (the burner is only 4" in diameter) and how far below the burner should I go and how far below the kettles should I go?

I have seem some people do some real nice steal shields made into perfect circles. I don't think I could pull that off. So what about the aluminum ducting I can find at Lowe's and HD. Would that work? Lastly, could I paint that aluminum stuff with some high temp paint?

Thanks all.

 

[david_42]

By putting a shield around your kettle, you can control the flow of the hot gases. Aluminum or galvanized construction flashing is the easiest thing to work with. I used 14" galvanized starting 4" below the burner and made it about 4" larger than the pot.

 

[ghart999]

Did you take it all the way to the bottom of the pot or is there a gap? Thanks.

 

[Sawdustguy]

Cake forms....

Cake form wind screen

It works like a charm, no distortion at all.

 

[ghart999]

Wow, how did these work out? What gauge were they? Any distortion from the heat?

Also can you ask your wife where she got them from? Would any cake place have them like Michael's?

 

[ghart999]

Based on the 4" diameter burner that I am using, what diameter wind shield should I use? I would like to use 12" in case I ever move to the Banjo burner. That way I would not have to change shields. But I don't know if a 12" shield on a 4" burner is counter productive.

 

[57plymouth]

When galvanized metal gets too hot it releases bad bad bad fumes.

The concept is good, but stay away from galvanized metal.

 

[Sawdustguy]

Based on the 4" diameter burner that I am using, what diameter wind shield should I use? I would like to use 12" in case I ever move to the Banjo burner. That way I would not have to change shields. But I don't know if a 12" shield on a 4" burner is counter productive.

No it's not. You don't want the shield so close that it warps and distorts.

 

[david_42]

When galvanized metal gets too hot it releases bad bad bad fumes.

The concept is good, but stay away from galvanized metal.

A good point, but it is a problem only when the metal gets hot enough for the zinc to burn off. My shield is much, much bigger than the burner and is not in contact with the flame.

 

[ghart999]

Thanks all.

 

[Catt22]

IMO, you don't need to use a wind screen if you are brewing in your garage and out of the wind. I brew in my garage too. I don't use wind screens and see no reason why they would be needed.

 

[ghart999]

It seems that most say that being able to channel all the heat to the burner is the reason. That if left in the open, much of the heat is lost off to the sides, etc. Better efficiency. I may be wrong on this. But after spending $1000 on this setup I don't want a bottleneck with the efficiency of heating.

But that's just what I seem to have read.

 

[Catt22]

It seems that most say that being able to channel all the heat to the burner is the reason. That if left in the open, much of the heat is lost off to the sides, etc. Better efficiency. I may be wrong on this. But after spending $1000 on this setup I don't want a bottleneck with the efficiency of heating.

But that's just what I seem to have read.

JMO, but I think it's B.S. I've never seen windscreens used on any commercial gas burners such as those used in restaurants. They would be a standard part of the design if there was an improvement in efficiency to be had. Wind screens certainly do have their place and that would be to shield the burner from wind. No wind, then no need for a wind screen. Whatever efficiency gain they may provide, if any at all, is probably trivial. This, like most anything, could be debated endlessly without resolution. The only way to verify it would be through controlled testing. Otherwise, it's nothing but speculation on everyone's part, including mine. There's also the possibility of actually reducing the efficiency if the burner cannot breathe freely due to the confinement, but that's also just more speculation.

 

[ghart999]

I see your point. I just want to make sure I am doing the right thing. I could always rig a cheap aluminum shield for one burner and then leave one without. Put a few gallons in 2 keggles and start the burners and see if one hits boiling quicker. Of course dialing in the gas identical with each burner may be difficult to do. How would I know whether they are identical in output?

 

[Catt22]

I see your point. I just want to make sure I am doing the right thing. I could always rig a cheap aluminum shield for one burner and then leave one without. Put a few gallons in 2 keggles and start the burners and see if one hits boiling quicker. Of course dialing in the gas identical with each burner may be difficult to do. How would I know whether they are identical in output?

The best you could probably do without going to extremes would be to simply eyeball the flame level. IMO, the improvement, if there is any, should be significant, consistent and measurable, otherwise I would not be much impressed. Repeating the experiment at least several times would be much better than a one shot run. Sometimes tests like these can fall prey to the pre-conceived idea syndrome. IOW, they will often yield just the kind of results that the tester is hoping for. This is not an unusual occurrence in the world or home brewing. My favorites along that line are the frequently posted reports of very high mash extraction efficiencies. I just love those!