| |
Main
Date: 19 Oct 2006 17:06:09
From: hankus
Subject: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
My disappointmnet with clogging with hop pellets of my chiller line (sits in
an ice bath on top of my submersible pump) has casued me to return the
tubing to it's original function as an Immersion chiller but witha different
approach.It was a 40 foot tube which was kinked badly a few years back and
so I made it into a double lop IC with the junction outsdie of the pot so as
to protect the junction plastic tubing and to be able to detect any leakage.
As I was joining it I have decided that instead of a 40 foot run I will
have TWO 20 feet runs leading from a tee.Although I expect a slight drop of
in water flow speed, I expect this will be more than compensated for.The
differential between liquids is a major part of the cooling process-the big
advantage of "counterflow" rather than parallel flow-is based on that.
Is it not better to introduce ANOTHER cool flow from foot 21 to foot 40
rather than having that run of tubing a warm flow?
I would appreciate feedback especially from those with
engineering/thermodynamic backgrounds
--
Thanks
Hank
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 09:27:35
From: Dan Listermann
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
My first immersion chiller was a sort of knot of copper tubing. I thought
that it could not be a good thing and went about building a better one. I
decided to build it with three concentric coils each fed from a manifold
arraignment so that each coil got fresh cold water. I have to say that I
was disappointed in its performance. It was not much better than the knot.
Dan
"hankus" <hbienert@cox.net > wrote in message
news:mFSZg.28462$Go3.9520@dukeread05...
> My disappointmnet with clogging with hop pellets of my chiller line (sits
> in an ice bath on top of my submersible pump) has casued me to return the
> tubing to it's original function as an Immersion chiller but witha
> different approach.It was a 40 foot tube which was kinked badly a few
> years back and so I made it into a double lop IC with the junction outsdie
> of the pot so as to protect the junction plastic tubing and to be able to
> detect any leakage.
> As I was joining it I have decided that instead of a 40 foot run I will
> have TWO 20 feet runs leading from a tee.Although I expect a slight drop
> of in water flow speed, I expect this will be more than compensated
> for.The differential between liquids is a major part of the cooling
> process-the big advantage of "counterflow" rather than parallel flow-is
> based on that.
> Is it not better to introduce ANOTHER cool flow from foot 21 to foot 40
> rather than having that run of tubing a warm flow?
> I would appreciate feedback especially from those with
> engineering/thermodynamic backgrounds
>
> --
> Thanks
> Hank
>
|
| | |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 19:07:48
From: hankus
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
Dan,
As always, thnx for your opinion and experience...but it surprises me.
Any thoughts as to why it didn't improve the chill rate...of the top of my
head- perhaps the water temp was cooler when U had a uniflow rather than
when U had a triflow...
--
Thanks
Hank
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 01:15:43
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
On Fri, 20 2006 19:07:48 -0500, <hbienert@cox.net > wrote:
> Dan,
> As always, thnx for your opinion and experience...but it surprises me.
> Any thoughts as to why it didn't improve the chill rate...of the top of my
> head- perhaps the water temp was cooler when U had a uniflow rather than
> when U had a triflow...
Knowing Dan, he probably already thought of that. ;)
My guess would be that it's one of those things that looks really good
on paper (IE, the theory is sound), but in reality it doesn't make that
much difference. You may technically get an improved chill rate, but will
it be anything significant?
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 08:42:32
From: Scott Lindner
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
> Knowing Dan, he probably already thought of that. ;)
>
> My guess would be that it's one of those things that looks really good
> on paper (IE, the theory is sound), but in reality it doesn't make that
> much difference. You may technically get an improved chill rate, but will
> it be anything significant?
I'd suspect the reason isn't due to chiller design, but the ability to get
the hot wort in contact with the chiller. I guess a way to say this is if
you let the wort sit idle there will be a high thermal gradient as you move
away from the chiller coils. You can help this by agitating the chiller or
the wort, but this still may not be enough to really get the wort to drop in
temp uniformly to maximize the energy transfer.
You could try Jamil's whirlpool trick with a straight chiller and your
multiple path chiller and see if the time changes. My guess is it will, but
is contingent upon really getting the wort moving to keep the temperature
gradient as low as possible.
Does that make any sense?
Scott
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 15:55:12
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
On Sat, 21 2006 08:42:32 -0600, <nospam@noemail.com > wrote:
> You could try Jamil's whirlpool trick with a straight chiller and your
> multiple path chiller and see if the time changes. My guess is it will, but
> is contingent upon really getting the wort moving to keep the temperature
> gradient as low as possible.
I think stirring the wort will have a much larger impact than using multiple
chillers.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:03:29
From: hankus
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
I had used an ice cream churn motor and paddle the last time these coils
were an IC but found it bulky and aggravating to set up so I have made the
2 coils plani-spiral with a small "stirhole". in the center.That way I can
re-fit a slimmer design paddle al a Pritchard electric masher paddle or even
just manually stir it.As U can tell I enjoy gadgeteering almost as much as
brewing
--
Thanks
Hank
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 19:04:54
From: hankus
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
..I am aware of the recirc whirlpool approach but my pump can't handle hot
liquids
--
Thanks
Hank
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Oct 2006 07:30:31
From: Scott Lindner
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
> I think stirring the wort will have a much larger impact than using
> multiple
> chillers.
We're in agreement
|
| | |
Date: 22 Oct 2006 10:23:31
From: Bob F
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
"Dan Listermann" <dan@listermann.com > wrote in message
news:12jhjlmqu0km591@corp.supernews.com...
> My first immersion chiller was a sort of knot of copper tubing. I thought
> that it could not be a good thing and went about building a better one. I
> decided to build it with three concentric coils each fed from a manifold
> arraignment so that each coil got fresh cold water. I have to say that I
> was disappointed in its performance. It was not much better than the
knot.
>
I would suspect that the "knot" of copper allowed better wort flow in,
among, and over the copper, reducing stratification and therfore cooling.
A neat, tight coil of copper doesn't allow as much flow over all surfaces
of the copper.
Bob
|
| |
Date: 20 Oct 2006 06:37:27
From: Scott Lindner
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
> Is it not better to introduce ANOTHER cool flow from foot 21 to foot 40
> rather than having that run of tubing a warm flow?
That seems like a very reasonable conclusion to me. I would not expect any
appreciable drop in flow rate from one 40' immersion chiller compared to
your dual 20' immersion chiller setup. In fact, I'd expect a higher flow
rate and as I suspect you're thinking, your rate of heat removal should drop
with it.
I like the concept. Just be sure to keep the hot wort moving to maximize
your chiller's ability to remove heat.
Let us know how this works.
Cheers,
Scott
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 21:35:38
From:
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
hankus wrote:
> Dan,
> As always, thnx for your opinion and experience...but it surprises me.
> Any thoughts as to why it didn't improve the chill rate...of the top of my
> head- perhaps the water temp was cooler when U had a uniflow rather than
> when U had a triflow...
Ideas for why it didn't improve the chill rate... The same volume of
water flowed through the knot and the coils. Since the same volume of
water flowing through both had the same thermal mass it could only
remove the same amount of heat energy. If your water is close to the
wort temp when it comes out of the chiller you can't make many
improvements to the chill rate. Pesky laws of thermodynamics. ;)
Moving the wort around can get you closer to the wort temp because it
lets the warmer wort come in contact with the chiller, but once the
water temp has equalized with the wort temp in the chiller it won't
remove any more heat energy from the wort. Increased flow could help
if you have the ability to transfer the heat to the water with the
chiller you have. i.e if the water reaches equilibrium with the wort
at 35' into the chiller and you have a 50' chiller increasing the flow
may net you an decrease in chill time since you have more mass to
transfer the heat to. Also three coils moving three times the volume
of water, with agitation of the wort to bring the warmer wort into
contact with the coil, should cool it much faster, but you have to up
the thermal mass by uping the volume of water flowing.
>
> --
> Thanks
> Hank
Bryan
|
| | |
Date: 22 Oct 2006 11:06:57
From: hankus
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
The comment by y...ser:
<< i.e if the water reaches equilibrium with the wort
> at 35' into the chiller and you have a 50' chiller >>
makes my point for parallel ICs -after 30' the H2O and wort are in
equilibrium since the H2O is now warmer.If the water was cooler than the
wort there would still be heat exchange
...A second point now comes to me-I have not been able to run my hose full
bore because coming from hose to down to 3/8" Cu tubing limits the
flow.Running a second 3/8" circuit will allow a greater TOTAL input of
initially cool water.
If one knew or could calculate at what point in the flow of a 70 degree
coolant through a 200 degree liquid one came to within 30 degrees
differential then we could know what the MAXUIMM effective length to make a
chiller.I am guessing that 3/8" ID Cu tubing needs only 25 feet to do it's
work based on the success I read about with CFCs of this dimension.
Anyone know offhand what the GPM water flow in a CFC usually is?
Please collect your notes from the use of linear rather than parallel ICs
and when I use it I will report back
--
Thanks
Hank
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2006 10:29:41
From: Bob F
Subject: Re: A differnt type of Immersion Chiller
|
"hankus" <hbienert@cox.net > wrote in message
news:mFSZg.28462$Go3.9520@dukeread05...
> My disappointmnet with clogging with hop pellets of my chiller line (sits
in
> an ice bath on top of my submersible pump) has casued me to return the
> tubing to it's original function as an Immersion chiller but witha
different
> approach.It was a 40 foot tube which was kinked badly a few years back and
> so I made it into a double lop IC with the junction outsdie of the pot so
as
> to protect the junction plastic tubing and to be able to detect any
leakage.
> As I was joining it I have decided that instead of a 40 foot run I will
> have TWO 20 feet runs leading from a tee.Although I expect a slight drop
of
> in water flow speed, I expect this will be more than compensated for.The
> differential between liquids is a major part of the cooling process-the
big
> advantage of "counterflow" rather than parallel flow-is based on that.
> Is it not better to introduce ANOTHER cool flow from foot 21 to foot 40
> rather than having that run of tubing a warm flow?
> I would appreciate feedback especially from those with
> engineering/thermodynamic backgrounds
If your water supply can maintain full pressure at the input of both
coils, your water flow through 2 will be twice that through 1. It should
speed your cooling significantly, if your wort is kept circulating.
Use larger fittings up to where the flow splits to the 2 coils, and from
where the rejoin if the outputs are re-combined. And use a large (3/4")
water supply and outlet hose, especially if they are long or your water
pressure is low.
Bob
|
|
