Great thread/ideas/discussion - this has helped me a lot.
So, in the redesign of my post flood brewery, I'm planning to make it a herms capable system, either running that way from the start or as an upgrade down the track - depends on how the $ all pan out.
The main thing I'm trying to work out is:
a) Probe placement points (mainly, do I get thermowells welded into the mash tun or HLT)
B) HEX size (mainly, do I use the HLT as the HEX or have a separate vessel).
I asked these questions over here:
http://www.aussiehomebrewer.com/forum/inde...mp;#entry805625 but have moved the discussion here as it makes a lot more sense.
Having read through this thread at length (all 27 pages) as well as reading a few of my brewing books, I'm still undecided about the design. I want a double batch capable system, so will go with 70 (electric)/70/100 (gas) as I know my previous 50/50/80 always pushed the limit of a 42L into the conical batch. So the vessels I'm happy with, and I can reuse the stand and march pump from the previous brewery (the march pump was stored above the flood level!).
Being a bit (or a lot) of a geek, I've done some quick calculations to look at the ramp time on various configurations for the HEX. All these calculations are based on a 9kg grain bill, 2L deadspace in boiler and mash tun, and a 3L/kg water:grain ratio, with a 10deg C step increase, 4400 watt element (actually 2 x 2200) running at 75% heating efficiency (to account for true inefficiency, heat loss in the lines/vessels and having to also heat the containers). And yes, I have a dedicated 15A circuit for the HLT (which also was above flood level!).
Scenario 1
35L mash volume
10L HEX unit (a separate vessel)
Element size 4400 watts (J/sec)
Element efficiency 75 %
HEX volume 10 L
Mash Tun volume 35 L
Step temp rise 10 oC
Time to heat HEX only 2.11 min
Time to heat HEX and Mash tun 9.51 min
Scenario 2
35L mash volume
30L HEX unit (a HLT with enough volume to do the sparge)
Element size 4400 watts (J/sec)
Element efficiency 75 %
HEX volume 30 L
Mash Tun volume 35 L
Step temp rise 10 oC
Time to heat HEX only 6.34 min
Time to heat HEX and Mash tun 13.74 min
Between the two scenarios there is only 4m:15sec of heat time difference overall (9.5 v's 13.75; these are decimal times), but the separate HEX vessel does do it in the recommended 10 minutes for a step increase.
If we make the mash a bit thinner, 4.0 L/kg, there is less sparge water required, so a third scenario:
Scenario 3
35L mash volume
20L HEX unit (a HLT with enough volume to do the sparge)
Element size 4400 watts (J/sec)
Element efficiency 75 %
HEX volume 20 L
Mash Tun volume 35 L
Step temp rise 10 oC
Time to heat HEX only 4.23 min
Time to heat HEX and Mash tun 11.62 min
Now this is pretty close to the right time.
So after geeking out for that little while, I guess the question now is:
Is the smaller HEX really worth the extra cost/connections/space if you can design a HLT and mash profile that will still run around the specs needed? And, how thin is too thin for the mash? or rephrased, how much of a reduction in sparge will start to create lower efficiencies (due to not washing the grain bed) that start to matter.
I am now thinking probe placement is much easier (having read all this thread) - thermowell in the HLT for sure, if seperate HEX one here also and another in the mash return line from the HERMS coil. But I'm open to more opinion/suggestions!
Thanks for all opinions and debate!
Matt
P.S. Just for clarity, the way I did the time calculations:
deltaH=m x C x deltaT
m=mass of mash + mass of HEX water in g (assume 1mL = 1g, its not for wort, but it'll do)
C=4.184J/g.oC (assuming pure water, its not for wort, but it'll do)
deltaT = step rise, in this case 10oC
Once delta H is calculated, divide by the adjusted element size (efficiency x size=adjusted size in watts or J/sec) to get the time in seconds; divide by 60 to get time in minutes