Chiller Lid - Something New?

[rich_lamb]

I used to get 20L down to about 30 deg in about 20 minutes - being a real water miser and using a low flow rate, but manually agitating.

You will find that if you let it sit still the rate stalls and it cools much more slowly. Someone with better fluid dynamics could explain better, but there's a stratification going on around the coils which insulates against effective cooling.

 

[Adamt]

Basically...

Heat transfer through a wall is proportional to the thermal conductivity of the material, the wall thickness, and the driving force (in this case, temperature difference).

Wort will be cooled at the coil surface (obviously). As the wort at the coil surface cools, the heat transfer drops as the temperature difference drops. Without movement in the fluid, heat will move from the bulk fluid (wort not near the coils) to the coil surface fluid. Diffusion of heat is rather slow. If there is sufficient movement in the fluid, it can be assumed that the fluid at the surface of the coil is roughly the same temperature as the bulk fluid, and hence the driving force is maximised.

I could crap on a lot more but I gotta go

Adam

 

[Jakechan]

I could crap on a lot more but I gotta go

Adam

No, thats fine...you go.

Thanks for the tech lesson

 

[raven19]

More brew p0rn!

I tend to agree agitation of the wort would also be required to speed up the process.

Great fabrication nonetheless!

 

[Peter Wadey]

Similar first reaction as Guest Lurker. But actually I thought that it would still be relatively inefficient in static wort and that some kind of agitation would still be needed to hasten chilling time, hence I saw that having it affixed to a lid like that was actually a fairly serious design flaw. So the stirrer or pump recirculation does seem mandatory.
.......

Steve,
Yes, agree with you about the design flaw - unless he has a tangential port for wort return (whirlpooling) - Domonsura didn't say.

I have been running concentric chillers like this since 2002 - it's not ground-breaking stuff. Some means of reducing the boundary layers IS necessary, hence I agitate, as you suggest.

If it was me I would have brought the pipe out over the edge of the kettle and down, with perhaps a notch in the lid to accommodate the pipe if I wanted the lid to close. Any fitting directly over the wort/ kettle makes me nervous.

Batz,
Cleaning the debris off that much copper is not that difficult when the coils can be separated - this design makes it more difficult.

Peter

 

[Guest Lurker]

To reiterate my original point. The great thing about this design is that a molecule of wort with a large amount of vibrational energy has no more than about 50 mm of conductive fluid to transmit its energy to the low energy reservoir represented by the closest copper coil, and the temperature of that low energy reservoir is as low as possible because it is being fed from two separate cold water sources. But....you could achieve a similar effect with half the copper pipe, half the water flow, and some circulation to move that wort molecule with a high vibrational energy closer to the cold reservoir if you happened to be concerned about cost and the worlds precious resources. But hey, I would use it, it would save me shaking my immersion chiller every 5 mins to achieve the same thing.

Edit: Although I figure by agitating I use less than half the water required by this chiller, after a hundred and something brews agitating the chiller, I finally creased and split mine, causing me to scratch my head and wonder why the kettle was overflowing during the chilling process, and the loss of the energy and effort and resources in producing 50 l of beer that was diluted to nothing and tipped is probably huge compared to the extra water used by this chiller.

 

[jonocarroll]

Pretty damn scmick right there. Noice!

I'll admit, I probably haven't thought this through enough on my own, and I could probably come to a conclusion, but hear me out, I'm tired. I haven't used a chiller before, so stop me if I make a mistake, but there's some interesting physics here, I'm sure of it.

I presume that the exit water temperature is roughly the wort temperature. Furthermore, that equality is probably achieved before the water gets to the exit - unless things are calibrated perfectly, there will be some distance that the water travels at the same temperature as the wort, and therefore does nothing useful, it just travels. In a 'perfect' chiller, the water would reach the temperature of the wort just as it exits.

If you had a single immersed coil, one end would be much hotter than the other - needless to say. Here's the bit I'm unsure about (not necessarily in a bad way)... If you have two coils, is it better to have them both flowing in the same direction (say, top to bottom) or is it better to 'counterflow' (for lack of a better term) them? One cooling from the top, one from the bottom.

If they flow the same way; You rapidly cool the input end, with both exits at the other end producing hot output. An agitator would remedy some of this.

If they flow opposite; One input is cooling the other output. You will have water leaving at a temperature less than the wort, which is worse than doing nothing. Said differently, one output is heating the other input, reducing the ability to later chill.

Now that I've typed through that, I think I've come to a conclusion after all - it's probably better to have them flow in the same direction. Even better if you agitate too.

Anyone agree/disagree? Was there a designated input/output in this design?

 

[Jakechan]

My crappy chiller on my last brew cooled the wort from near boiling down to 31 in 38 mins (baring in mind this is in CQld in summer) . Isn't that fast enough? With all this talk of agitating and etc. I wonder how impatient you guys really are


Cheers,
Jake

 

[Ross]

It's a work of art alright, but has a few too many negatives for me.


1) Putting the lid on for the last 10 mins of the boil to sterilise is likely to cause some terrible boil overs, you will have no way of seeing what's happening. I guess you could submerge in sanitiser instead, but I prefer the boil treatment.

2) With fittings inside the lid, you'd be hard pressed to spot a leak if/when it occurs. I use tank water, so there's no way I'd be risking it, as 1 drip could spell trouble.

3) Will still have problems cooling effectively without some wort movement or coil agitation.


Cheers Ross

 

[Adamt]

My crappy chiller on my last brew cooled the wort from near boiling down to 31 in 38 mins (baring in mind this is in CQld in summer) . Isn't that fast enough? With all this talk of agitating and etc. I wonder how impatient you guys really are


Cheers,
Jake

It's not the time, it's the volume of water being used, which part or all of is often dumped.

 

[Asher]

Its the steralising of it that bothers me the most too and if chosing the boil method, having to cover kettle to do so for the last 10 mins...

BTW

Does it come with its own ss stand?
Does the ss stand have its own stand?
Does the ss stand stand have a stand?



Asherl

 

[domonsura]

Wow....lots of opinions there......Just quickly -

1. This is a separate lid, to be used only for the chilling part.

2. The wort flows through each coil in opposite directions - one with the cooling water going straight to the bottom coil and the other with the cooling water going straight to the top coil - therefore creating it's own 'agitation' in the cooling process - commonly called 'convection currents', and the customer has done considerable research in his design and is confident that it will work effectively without further agitation - although it is something he has considered. I say again.....each coil has a separate water supply, the water is not running from one and then into the other - quite clearly that would be a waste of time.

3. I personally don't think it would be any harder to clean than another immersion chiller - a quick hose off or dunk in a bucket and it's done. However it has the benefit that airborne bacteria cannot drop into the cooling wort. Hence the lid.

4. The compression fittings used don't leak.........that's why he spent the extra $100 to use the proper compression fittings

5. The customer didn't purchase a plate chiller, as he is of the school that prefers to cool the entire wort volume at once.

I have to say - some of the assumptions made by people who haven't used this type of equipment but are still willing to be impromptu experts is surprising to say the least......It's just an immersion chiller........they work perfectly fine and we all know it. The customer is also using tank water to recirculate through the chiller, and so can run the water as hard as he likes, removing that little "water would be hot halfway through the coil and therefore not doing anything" assumption.

I'm sure agitation would increase efficiency to be sure, that's not up for debate really because it makes perfect sense. But it would also further complicate the arrangement, involve electricity and therefore further risk and $$$, and be something extra to clean. Customer didn't want that. I didn't feel like arguing . It was tricky enough to make as it was :lol:

And yes Steve - email received, shouldn't be an issue Amanda will get back to you today as I am working out on site today.

 

[Roscoe]

By moving (aggitating) the wort over the coils of the chiller, it will definitly increase the efficiency of the chiller and reduce chilling time.

I can't remember where I found this photo of an immersion chiller, but it looks like a good idea.

In the centre of the coils it has a flow aggitator/whirlpooler. It achieves two things at once. Wort is drawn from the outlet at the bottom of the pot and pumped back into the pot through the aggitator/whirlpooler.

What are you thoughts as I'm thinking of making one.

Cheers & Beers

Roscoe :beer:

 

[domonsura]

Its the steralising of it that bothers me the most too and if chosing the boil method, having to cover kettle to do so for the last 10 mins...

BTW

Does it come with its own ss stand?
Does the ss stand have its own stand?
Does the ss stand stand have a stand?



Asherl

The answers to all of those question are yes. All you need to do is get out your cheque book, and you too can have a stainless stand for the stainless stand that the stainless stand for the stainless stand stands on. I can even make you something out of stainless to stand on so you can admire your stainless stands from it. :lol:

Just don't ask me to make it out of mild. <_<

 

[Jakechan]

It's not the time, it's the volume of water being used, which part or all of is often dumped.

Fair enough. We have no water restrictions up here and we have the best water pressure I have ever seen.
Cheers,
Jake

 

[Adamt]

Is the pressure high enough to make it down to the Murray? <_<

 

[Batz]

I have to say - some of the assumptions made by people who haven't used this type of equipment but are still willing to be impromptu experts is surprising to say the least......It's just an immersion chiller........they work perfectly fine and we all know it.

Others of us have been brewing for 30 years and have made or had most types of chillers.Therefore there is quite a bit of experience here and not all assumptions.
You asked for opinions,sorry if they weren't all to your liking

 

[Sammus]

By moving (aggitating) the wort over the coils of the chiller, it will definitly increase the efficiency of the chiller and reduce chilling time.

I can't remember where I found this photo of an immersion chiller, but it looks like a good idea.

In the centre of the coils it has a flow aggitator/whirlpooler. It achieves two things at once. Wort is drawn from the outlet at the bottom of the pot and pumped back into the pot through the aggitator/whirlpooler.

What are you thoughts as I'm thinking of making one.

Cheers & Beers

Roscoe :beer:


View attachment 24821

you saw it here http://www.mrmalty.com/chiller.php

Apparently, he's the only one to ever get it working. Everyone else says the March doesnt have the flow rate for any kind suitable whirlpool. I guess the movement of the wort would be enough though.

Back on topic, I think it looks cool haha. I like my plate chiller though, quicker than any immersion I've ever heard of. Chilling speed is equivalent to penis size here isn't it? Oh wait nah, that's efficiency - I'm lacking in that department, and my speed chiller will never make up for it!

 

[jonocarroll]

Sorry if my opinion offended. You did ask, and perhaps misunderstood.

I'd be interested to hear some feedback on what the various 'cooling factions' think.

2. <snip> I say again.....each coil has a separate water supply, the water is not running from one and then into the other - quite clearly that would be a waste of time.

Clearly. Did someone suggest otherwise?

3. I personally don't think it would be any harder to clean than another immersion chiller - a quick hose off or dunk in a bucket and it's done. However it has the benefit that airborne bacteria cannot drop into the cooling wort. Hence the lid.

Agreed. It can't be much harder than a single coil. I'm also not sure about the difficulty of sanitising this - surely a careful spray with iodophor or starsan (whichever is suitable for copper) would sanitise a clean chiller. ??

I have to say - some of the assumptions made by people who haven't used this type of equipment but are still willing to be impromptu experts is surprising to say the least......It's just an immersion chiller........they work perfectly fine and we all know it. The customer is also using tank water to recirculate through the chiller, and so can run the water as hard as he likes, removing that little "water would be hot halfway through the coil and therefore not doing anything" assumption.

Once again, sorry if I've upset anyone by adding in some opinion based on physics. I'll just clarify my point about being hot before the water exits - it's a good thing. Just as long as it gets as hot as it can just before it exits. If it gets hot halfway through, then yes, it's doing nothing. That's very difficult to avoid though. I was lead to believe that chillers reached thermal equilibrium somewhere around the 2/3 mark. You also want to avoid having water exit that is not as hot as it can get, since that's inefficient. I never said the design wouldn't work, I reckon it will work even better than a single coil, I'm just trying to add some advice to make it as efficient as it can be.

I was never suggesting that the water would flow back through the chiller again - my point about which direction to flow was that if the two inputs flow in opposite directions, I presume that the hot output coil will be cooled by the input coil, resulting in cooler water exiting, which as I said, is inefficient, or at least, less efficient.

If the customer has some information that contradicts this, then I'd be keen to hear it. Experimental evidence usually wins over theory.

 

[clatty]

I'd be interested to hear some feedback on what the various 'cooling factions' think.

Hi domonsura

I would be interested in hearing some feedback on if you or your customer has actually used it yet? And...................

It sure does look nice though.