Stainless Conicals

[dreamboat]

You could always isolate the hose at the low end when you finish pumping, switch off the pump, then raise the hose up to get it to drain through into the fermenter.... you would have to let some air in to break the vacuum, but it could be done.

Or you could do what the petroleum boys do, and pump a second, completely different substance through the line after the wort has all been pumped..... water would be my liquid of choice. It would only take you a couple of practice runs to see that you need to run through either a fixed additional volume to clear the pipeline, or run for a fixed time with water to get the wort through.... either way, you could keep any losses to a minimum.

dreamboat

 

[Wortgames]

Another option might be to fill plastic containers as normal, and then drain these into the conicals in situ. Might be an extra opportunity for aeration too.

Alternatively it might be time to get a bigger brewery

 

[Batz]

Just been thinking about this some more and I will have to change the way I do some things on brewday in order to incorporate a SS conical.
I brew under the pagola, but then have to get the fermenter into the shed and into the chest freezer. Easy with a 25 litre plastic fermenter, just lift it up.
Will be a bit harder with a SS Conical as I still have to get up the four steps to the shed, then lift it into the freezer.
Wheels, or a platform on wheels for the fermenter will solve the pagola to the shed part, but depending on weight getting it up four steps and lifting into the shed might be a bit of an effort.
Do you think a March pump will be able to pump my wort 20 meters with about a 2 meter head ?

Doc

[post="90749"][/post]​

A bamboo pole and two buckets Doc? :lol:

Batz

 

[Guest Lurker]

I have bamboo available at very reasonable rates.

 

[Hoops]

Only one way to find out Doc, hook up the garden hose and give it a go with water. How much beer would you expect to lose in the hose do you think?

[post="90753"][/post]​

none if you can turn off the tap from kettle and open one from HLT so you flush the line with boiled sanitised water?!

 

[redbeard]

Or you could do what the petroleum boys do, and pump a second, completely different substance through the line after the wort has all been pumped.....

[post="90756"][/post]​

dont they use pigs in the pipe to seperate the 2 liquids ? <_<

(just google it ok ?)

 

[sintax69]

Why not make a straight 20 m CFC with couple lengths of copper pipe kill 2 birds

 

[Doc]

Any more pics after last weekend Wortgames ?

Beers,
Doc

 

[Wortgames]

Sorry Doc, we ran out of time on the weekend but we're planning another session on Thursday night.

Hopefully we'll actually be able to finish the first working vessel then, and if we're really lucky we'll get some legs on it too. It will at least look the part but I'm concerned about getting a tight seal with the lid at the moment, so the dimensions may still need some fine tuning before production.

Either way I should be able to post some better pics then.

Unfortunately it's not looking too great for delivery before Christmas, everyone I'm dealing with is already complaining that they've got too much work on, but I'm not giving up yet. Obviously I want to be sure that the design is perfect before I go ahead with any quantities.

I'll post an update as soon as I have anything.

:beer:

 

[Wortgames]

Apologies for the lack of updates, there hasn't really been much to tell.

Unfortunately Christmas is looking almost impossible. Mrs Me Mate Glyn is pregnant, they are trying to find a new house and the powers that be are keeping Glyn's nose to the grindstone. Couple that with the general inability to get anything out of anybody during the leadup to Christmas and I'd have to bet on us not getting there. Sorry.

Basically, the general design is just about complete and what I've shown you in the previous pics is close to what we'll have. I've got a bit closer with the lid arrangement, it will look something like this:



The seal will not be quite as large, and my material of choice will be clear silicone, but you get the idea.

As mentioned previously the legs will be 'sockets' for 4 x 30mm whatever, and they will be attached corner-on to form a square. I will be able to provide stainless legs in different sizes but it will obviously be cheaper for people to source their own locally.

There are a few reasons I am going with 4 legs over 3, but here are some of them:
1. more stable (larger footprint)
2. much easier to build your own free-standing stand (or wall bracket)
3. legs will form part of handle arrangement
4. easier to fit in square spaces (I know, it sounds weak to me too).

There are just a few things slowing us down at the moment, aside from welder virility. I am still refining a lot of the details, and for obvious reasons the design isn't going to work until everything fits together properly. There is a lot of back-and-forth between suppliers until we settle on The Final Solution, and once we do that we then need to construct the appropriate jigs.

Once we start producing them we'll be able to support them as a 'product line' rather than just a bunch of one-off fabrications.

I still haven't decided what to do about the side port. The main purpose I can see for a side port at all is for sampling. When racking it should be easy to dump the sediment first and rack from the bottom. For this reason I was planning to supply them without side fittings, as it may not be necessary and if you want one it should be easy to drill a hole and add a weldless fitting (the rotating racking arms are a weldless design). However I am tempted to look at adding a smaller triclover ferrule to the side, as it should be possible to create a rotating design by welding a tube into the valve and lubricating the seal during assembly.

[EDIT: I have since done some more research and the consensus seems to be that you can never really clear all of the yeast out of the bottom port - although most existing designs have some sort of ledge at the cone end which this design doesn't have]

Does anybody have any input on what size valve they would want on the side port, and what they intend to use it for?

:beer:

 

[jgriffin]

Well my thought would be for sampling and testing. Wouldn't it be a bit hard to take a gravity measurement through the dump valve without throwing away a litre or so of yeast trub every time?

 

[Wortgames]

The simple answer is that you really wouldn't take gravity readings through the bottom valve at all, but as home brewers we can easily open the lid to take samples (with a wine thief or by taking direct reading with a sanitised hydrometer) which the big breweries can't do.

I was more wondering whether anyone reckons they would want to rack from the side port, leaving the trub in place, which might affect the type of valve we go with and its position.

???

 

[AndrewQLD]

Racking from a side port sounds a lot better than from the bottom, You will definately not be getting any trub or yeast through the side port, whereas from the bottom could be quite wasteful, you could lose a fair bit of wort befor it cleared up enough.
Love the lid design it looks clean and simple. hope your mate and his missus have a smooth move too.

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Doc]

I was more wondering whether anyone reckons they would want to rack from the side port, leaving the trub in place, which might affect the type of valve we go with and its position.

Possibly depending on the height of the bottom valve from the ground and the ability to get the beer out and into a keg without moving it from the freezer. Maybe easier to use the side port and a little CO2 to get the beer out.

Doc

 

[Hoops]

When speaking to my mate (owns the conical I posted the pic of) - he said that you need to rack from the side valve as you will never get all the trub and yeast out if you rack from the dump valve. By using the side racking valve you let all the trub & yeast settle then draw from above it all so you get crystal clear beer.

As you say though they can always be added later.

Hoops

 

[ausdb]

I was more wondering whether anyone reckons they would want to rack from the side port, leaving the trub in place, which might affect the type of valve we go with and its position.

WG why not just give them the option of having an extra 1" ferrule welded on 1/2 way up the cone for a few extra bucks? Even if you don't use it straight away it just takes a blank, gasket and clamp to seal.

 

[Hoops]

WG why not just give them the option of having an extra 1" ferrule welded on 1/2 way up the cone for a few extra bucks? Even if you don't use it straight away it just takes a blank, gasket and clamp to seal.

[post="94038"][/post]​

Great idea ausdb, triclove fittings rock!

You're not a real brewer until you use tri-clove fittings h34r:

 

[Trent]

I was always under the impression with a conical that you dont need to rack, just dump all the yeast and trub out of the bottom valve, and it is the same result as racking. Never hada conicla, it is just how I thought it went, is this right, or is there some flaw in my thinking?
All the best
Trent

 

[Doc]

You are correct Trent.
I think Hoops is referring to racking to a keg or bottling bucket.

Beers,
Doc

 

[Hoops]

As far as I understand yes & no :huh:
You dump the majority of the trub & break material (as Doc has said).

When the yeast flocculates you can then take some of that for repitching.
I think the problem is that when you try and dump all yeast and trub you get turbulence caused in the cone which would mix some of the yeast and trub back into the beer so it would be a bit cloudy again. By drawing from the side port you don't disturb the yeast at all and get crystal clear beer. For most people this probably is a minor concern and might not be a problem.
We really need someone that has used conicals before to give us the heads up.

Hoops