Wort Chiller - Stainless or Copper?

[OtisLamb]

Hi. I am in the process of purchasing a immersion wort chiller. I have a quick question: What is the difference between a stainless steel and copper chiller? Both types are priced in the same general amount ~$50 for a 25'. Does copper transmit cooling quicker? Is stainless easier to keep clean? Please let me know your thoughts/experiences so I can make a good decision. Thanks.

 

[RiverCityBrewer]

They are both the same work to keep clean, and technically copper does transfer heat faster but for this application I don't think there is an appreciable difference. What ever you get make sure you get the biggest size tubing you can... More surface area equals faster cooling.

 

[DurtyChemist]

They are both the same work to keep clean, and technically copper does transfer heat faster but for this application I don't think there is an appreciable difference. What ever you get make sure you get the biggest size tubing you can... More surface area equals faster cooling.

Smaller tubing will create more surface area. 1/2" tubing will get to 12" tall faster than 3/8" tubing will. You will have more coils covering a larger surface area of wort using 3/8" tubing than you will for 1/2" tubing. Research more.

I have copper because it was cheaper. If it was the same price I might go with stainless for personal preference.

 

[PackerfaninSanDiego]

Smaller tubing will create more surface area. You will have more coils covering a larger surface area of wort using 3/8" tubing than you will for 1/2" tubing. Research more.

this is so wrong. I'll just leave it at that

 

[m1batt1]

25' is 25'. If you made your own then yes with 3/8" you could get more coils to get 12" tall. But it would add length to the over all coil. And considering you want space in between each coil for wort to flow and increase surface area contact its not going to get you many more coils with an 1/8" difference. With that being said 1/2" will have a larger surface area because of the larger diameter.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Home Brew mobile app

 

[OtisLamb]

They are both the same work to keep clean, and technically copper does transfer heat faster but for this application I don't think there is an appreciable difference. What ever you get make sure you get the biggest size tubing you can... More surface area equals faster cooling.

I was going to get a 50' length, however, my pot will not allow it. From the top of the false bottom to the top of the pot is 12" and a 50' coil is 12" leaving no room to place the lid during cooling.

 

[BadWolfBrewing]

if you want a longer IC length, you can double up on the coil. An inner coil and an outer coil. Plenty of others do it, and I think JaDeD sells one like that. Its a couple extra joints to sweat (if you use copper), but thats not very hard to do.

As for copper vs stainless, the thin-wall heat exchanger approximation is pretty valid here, which neglects the conduction term. So, the difference is pretty small.

I favor stainless whenever I can, but if you use copper you can build it yourself to suit your pot perfectly. Or, checkout stainlessbrewing.com, he will build stainless coils with custom specs for an incredibly low price.

I'll weigh in on the above debate. Regardless of size, the flow is pretty darn turbulent, before somebody brings up that point. With 3/8 tubing, the ratio of wetted surface to volume is higher, which is a good thing. However, the 1/2" tubing will get a much faster flow rate, which is a better thing. Especially in the beginning, when the chilling water exiting the pipe will be near boiling, the ratio of surface area to volume doesn't matter, only flow rate. Once the wort gets knocked down a fair amount, one could make the argument that the 3/8 will use less water to chill the rest of the way. For chilling speed alone, though, 1/2" and full flow.

The biggest game-changer will be to whirlpool or stir. That will speed things up a huge amount.

 

[experimike]

I'll throw this out just as a thought:

Have you considered a counterflow chiller? I find them to be easier to clean and use. Nice option if you plan to use a hop back.

I am not dissing immersion chillers - they can work fine. Just thought I'd open up the alternatives before money is spent.

 

[COEBRA]

I don't put a lid on mine when I'm chilling it. Some of the heat will actually stay in the wort with the lid on. That's why you cover the mash tun. It keeps the heat in. Uncovered lets the heat out. Just dont go sneezing in it while it's cooling

Sent from my Android using the HomebrewTalk mobile app.

 

[BadWolfBrewing]

Back when I chilled, I kept things sealed up when chilling. This was with an immersion chiller. With whirlpooling, it went pretty fast. Once the lid is on, I have confidence it is in a pretty sanitary environment, and I didn't have to worry about it. Plus, the recirc while chilling sanitized lines and the pump.

I second the CFC idea, especially with recirculation. Flexible for different batch sizes, could double for HERMS, etc. Once I have more room and a permanent brew stand / space, I'm planning on making a straight-piped CFC for chillings and HERMS.

 

[COEBRA]

Also you can create the "counterflow" by using a cordless drill and a 4-6" paint mixer from HD or Lowe's. Just fine out which way your water is flowing through your immersion chiller and stir the wort with the drill in the opposite direction. You can then use the mixer and drill to add your oxygen to the wort instead of shaking your carboy for 15 minutes!! I learned this trick from a veteran homebrewer!! 212 to 75 in about 20-25 minutes in the summer!

Sent from my Android using the HomebrewTalk mobile app.

 

[JaDeDBrewing]

Hey guys, we thought this might come in useful for anyone buying or building a chiller.

For any heat exchanger, the following are true.

1) Increasing the surface area to water volume ratio (i.e. smaller diameter tubing, less distance between plates) results in better water efficiency (less water needed).

2) Increasing the flow rate (larger diameter tubing, multi-feed smaller diameter tubing, more distance between plates or more plates) will result in faster heat transfer (faster chilling times, but will lose water efficiency).

3) Longer tubing/plates results in a slower maximum flow rate due to increase friction (for both chill water and wort). It will result in better water efficiency, but it can slow down your chilling speeds (1/2" 50' is the exception to this due to the large volume of 'underutilized' chilling water that can be pushed through).

4) Any unused section of the heat exchanger (air bubbles in a plate chiller or coils out of the wort for immersion chiller) will result with a negative effect on both speed and efficiency.

5) Chilling wort to equal the temperature of your chilling water will take more than twice as long as chilling wort to 10 degrees above your chilling water temp.


One of the issues when designing a chiller is the restriction of the source water. EPA regulations limit kitchen faucets to 2.2 GPM, utility faucets are generally 3-4 GPM, and garden hose spigots are 6-8 GPM. If you are using a kitchen faucet with a chiller that is capable of 6 GPM, there is wasted water and time. Obviously there will be a little bit better efficiency due to the extra time the water will remain in the chiller, but it is not enough to equal the efficiency of the smaller diameter tubing.

 

[OtisLamb]

Yes. But, that also requires a pump.

 

[OtisLamb]

Hi Guys. The poll was 50%/50%, so I bought a stainless steel emersion chiller. Used it the first time on Saturday, 3/15/14, and it cut the chill time down to half. Thanks for responding with your input/information.