| |
Main
Date: 18 Jul 2006 01:43:17
From: Steve/Aus
Subject: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper tubing with an
outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap fittings. This time, in order
to reduce water wastage, I put an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the end of
the outlet hose and used the hot water for clean-up.
This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably but, instead
of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it, and by quite a bit. I
dropped down to my target temperature in about half the time and with
considerably less water. Am I the only one that has experienced this?
Steve W (in Aus)
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 03:55:42
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Steve/Aus <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote:
> I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper
> tubing with an outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap
> fittings. This time, in order to reduce water wastage, I put
> an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the end of the outlet hose
> and used the hot water for clean-up.
>
> This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably
> but, instead of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it,
> and by quite a bit. I dropped down to my target temperature
> in about half the time and with considerably less water. Am I
> the only one that has experienced this?
I didn't know any better and have always used an adjustable
sprayer so that I would not have a swamp in my lawn. The
water is sprayed onto garden, trees, and lawn. When I brew
indoors, I stick the pail in a chest freezer and lower the
temperature to 32F (0C). I usually keep the temperature at
64F (18.67C) for fermenting Meads.
Dick
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 01:41:58
From: Dan Logcher
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Dick Adams wrote:
> Steve/Aus <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote:
>
>
>>I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper
>>tubing with an outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap
>>fittings. This time, in order to reduce water wastage, I put
>>an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the end of the outlet hose
>>and used the hot water for clean-up.
>>
>>This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably
>>but, instead of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it,
>>and by quite a bit. I dropped down to my target temperature
>>in about half the time and with considerably less water. Am I
>>the only one that has experienced this?
>
>
> I didn't know any better and have always used an adjustable
> sprayer so that I would not have a swamp in my lawn. The
> water is sprayed onto garden, trees, and lawn. When I brew
> indoors, I stick the pail in a chest freezer and lower the
> temperature to 32F (0C). I usually keep the temperature at
> 64F (18.67C) for fermenting Meads.
I hate the idea of wasting the water too, so I switched to a
recirculating system. I got a 135 GPH fountain pump from Home
Despot and pump icewater from a cooler thru my chiller. I dump
the hot water back into the cooler and recycle. I use 3 bags of
ice to cool a 3 gallon boil, with a small amount of ice left.
This cools faster than tap water and uses less water overall.
--
Dan
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 08:08:56
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Dan Logcher" <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:44bc74ad$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> Dick Adams wrote:
>
> > Steve/Aus <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper
> >>tubing with an outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap
> >>fittings. This time, in order to reduce water wastage, I put
> >>an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the end of the outlet hose
> >>and used the hot water for clean-up.
> >>
> >>This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably
> >>but, instead of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it,
> >>and by quite a bit. I dropped down to my target temperature
> >>in about half the time and with considerably less water. Am I
> >>the only one that has experienced this?
> >
> >
> > I didn't know any better and have always used an adjustable
> > sprayer so that I would not have a swamp in my lawn. The
> > water is sprayed onto garden, trees, and lawn. When I brew
> > indoors, I stick the pail in a chest freezer and lower the
> > temperature to 32F (0C). I usually keep the temperature at
> > 64F (18.67C) for fermenting Meads.
>
> I hate the idea of wasting the water too, so I switched to a
> recirculating system. I got a 135 GPH fountain pump from Home
> Despot and pump icewater from a cooler thru my chiller. I dump
> the hot water back into the cooler and recycle. I use 3 bags of
> ice to cool a 3 gallon boil, with a small amount of ice left.
>
> This cools faster than tap water and uses less water overall.
Doesn't the ice cost a lot more than the water you save?
Bob
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 16:47:54
From: Dan Logcher
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Bob wrote:
> "Dan Logcher" <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:44bc74ad$0$580$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>
>>Dick Adams wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve/Aus <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper
>>>>tubing with an outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap
>>>>fittings. This time, in order to reduce water wastage, I put
>>>>an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the end of the outlet hose
>>>>and used the hot water for clean-up.
>>>>
>>>>This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably
>>>>but, instead of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it,
>>>>and by quite a bit. I dropped down to my target temperature
>>>>in about half the time and with considerably less water. Am I
>>>>the only one that has experienced this?
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't know any better and have always used an adjustable
>>>sprayer so that I would not have a swamp in my lawn. The
>>>water is sprayed onto garden, trees, and lawn. When I brew
>>>indoors, I stick the pail in a chest freezer and lower the
>>>temperature to 32F (0C). I usually keep the temperature at
>>>64F (18.67C) for fermenting Meads.
>>
>>I hate the idea of wasting the water too, so I switched to a
>>recirculating system. I got a 135 GPH fountain pump from Home
>>Despot and pump icewater from a cooler thru my chiller. I dump
>>the hot water back into the cooler and recycle. I use 3 bags of
>>ice to cool a 3 gallon boil, with a small amount of ice left.
>>
>>This cools faster than tap water and uses less water overall.
>
>
> Doesn't the ice cost a lot more than the water you save?
I can get 10# ice for $1. And its not the cost that bothers me, its
wasting water. I pay a flat rate for water, I could open my hoses
and irragation all day long and never pay a cent more than the flat
rate.. I just don't like wasting clean water.
--
Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 18:02:21
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Dan Logcher" <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:44bd48fa$0$572$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> Bob wrote:
> > Doesn't the ice cost a lot more than the water you save?
>
> I can get 10# ice for $1. And its not the cost that bothers me, its
> wasting water. I pay a flat rate for water, I could open my hoses
> and irragation all day long and never pay a cent more than the flat
> rate.. I just don't like wasting clean water.
Where does your power come from? If it's hydro, how much water was
flushed to freeze water into ice? If it's coal, how much pollution was
produced to make the ice? You could water the garden with the output.
Or, use it for cleanup. Or both.
Bob
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 00:09:11
From: Dan Logcher
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Bob wrote:
> "Dan Logcher" <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:44bd48fa$0$572$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>
>>Bob wrote:
>
>
>>>Doesn't the ice cost a lot more than the water you save?
>>
>>I can get 10# ice for $1. And its not the cost that bothers me, its
>>wasting water. I pay a flat rate for water, I could open my hoses
>>and irragation all day long and never pay a cent more than the flat
>>rate.. I just don't like wasting clean water.
>
>
> Where does your power come from? If it's hydro, how much water was
> flushed to freeze water into ice? If it's coal, how much pollution was
> produced to make the ice? You could water the garden with the output.
> Or, use it for cleanup. Or both.
A mix of coal, oil, and nuclear sources in New England. I use the left over
ice water (mostly melted) for rinsing off. I brew in doors, so watering
the lawn is very difficult..
--
Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 21:05:18
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:47:54 -0400, <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net > wrote:
> I can get 10# ice for $1. And its not the cost that bothers me, its
> wasting water. I pay a flat rate for water, I could open my hoses
> and irragation all day long and never pay a cent more than the flat
> rate.. I just don't like wasting clean water.
Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is where
it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it temporarily
and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure, I
could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost of
your utility bill.
John.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 23:58:38
From: Dan Logcher
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:47:54 -0400, <dlogcher*xspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I can get 10# ice for $1. And its not the cost that bothers me, its
>>wasting water. I pay a flat rate for water, I could open my hoses
>>and irragation all day long and never pay a cent more than the flat
>>rate.. I just don't like wasting clean water.
>
>
> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is where
> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it temporarily
> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
Clean water is something to conserve. More and more water sources are becoming
contaminated, unusable. Water may come from the earth and return to it, but it
doesn't always come back to us clean.
> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure, I
> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost of
> your utility bill.
Resource conservation is always a good thing. My method also cools the wort
a lot faster than using tap water, and I don't have to run a long hose from
the bathroom sink to the kitchen anymore.
--
Dan
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:58:06
From: Steve/Aus
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnebqjbr.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is where
> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it
> temporarily
> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
>
> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure, I
> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost of
> your utility bill.
>
>
> John.
If you lived where I do John you wouldn't make comments like that. Adelaide,
my city, like most other Australian cities and towns are on permanent water
restrictions - 365 days a year not just in summer. And, water is getting
more expensive. We don't pay a flat rate, we're on a user-pays system. Your
first (x) kilolitres is at a specific rate and after that, it increases in
cost per kilolitre.
All houses and properties have water meters which are estimated 3 times a
year and read once a year (and reconciled at that reading)
How's that for a reason!
Steve W (in Aus)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 15:24:27
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:58:06 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote:
>
> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnebqjbr.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is where
>> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
>> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
>> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it
>> temporarily
>> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
>>
>> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure, I
>> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
>> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost of
>> your utility bill.
>>
>>
>> John.
>
> If you lived where I do John you wouldn't make comments like that. Adelaide,
> my city, like most other Australian cities and towns are on permanent water
> restrictions - 365 days a year not just in summer. And, water is getting
> more expensive.
That's basically what I meant when I made the exception for draught
conditions. IE, if you've got water usage restrictions, then it makes
perfect sense to be worried about it. That's generally not something
we run into in the US on a regular basis, at least the part of the US
I'm in.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 08:28:33
From: Ryan Case
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:58:06 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote:
>> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnebqjbr.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>>> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is where
>>> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
>>> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
>>> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it
>>> temporarily
>>> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
>>>
>>> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure, I
>>> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
>>> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost of
>>> your utility bill.
>>>
>>>
>>> John.
>> If you lived where I do John you wouldn't make comments like that. Adelaide,
>> my city, like most other Australian cities and towns are on permanent water
>> restrictions - 365 days a year not just in summer. And, water is getting
>> more expensive.
>
> That's basically what I meant when I made the exception for draught
> conditions. IE, if you've got water usage restrictions, then it makes
> perfect sense to be worried about it. That's generally not something
> we run into in the US on a regular basis, at least the part of the US
> I'm in.
Where you at?
Ryan
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 16:10:07
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:28:33 -0700, <usenet@jamesrobert.us > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:58:06 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote:
>>> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnebqjbr.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>>>> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is where
>>>> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
>>>> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
>>>> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it
>>>> temporarily
>>>> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
>>>>
>>>> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure, I
>>>> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
>>>> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost of
>>>> your utility bill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John.
>>> If you lived where I do John you wouldn't make comments like that. Adelaide,
>>> my city, like most other Australian cities and towns are on permanent water
>>> restrictions - 365 days a year not just in summer. And, water is getting
>>> more expensive.
>>
>> That's basically what I meant when I made the exception for draught
>> conditions. IE, if you've got water usage restrictions, then it makes
>> perfect sense to be worried about it. That's generally not something
>> we run into in the US on a regular basis, at least the part of the US
>> I'm in.
>
>
> Where you at?
Maryland.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 18:34:54
From: grossbea
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Hey John, where in MD? I'm basically a lurker here - I've learned a heck of
a lot about brewing reading your posts (and others, of course). I'm also in
MD - Severn. It's near Ft. Meade...
Al G.
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnebsmee.ek6.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:28:33 -0700, <usenet@jamesrobert.us> wrote:
>> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:58:06 GMT,
>>> <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit> wrote:
>>>> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnebqjbr.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>>>>> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is
>>>>> where
>>>>> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
>>>>> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline,
>>>>> that
>>>>> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it
>>>>> temporarily
>>>>> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then
>>>>> sure, I
>>>>> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that,
>>>>> I
>>>>> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost
>>>>> of
>>>>> your utility bill.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John.
>>>> If you lived where I do John you wouldn't make comments like that.
>>>> Adelaide,
>>>> my city, like most other Australian cities and towns are on permanent
>>>> water
>>>> restrictions - 365 days a year not just in summer. And, water is
>>>> getting
>>>> more expensive.
>>>
>>> That's basically what I meant when I made the exception for draught
>>> conditions. IE, if you've got water usage restrictions, then it makes
>>> perfect sense to be worried about it. That's generally not something
>>> we run into in the US on a regular basis, at least the part of the US
>>> I'm in.
>>
>>
>> Where you at?
>
> Maryland.
>
>
> John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 03:47:58
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:34:54 -0400, <grossbea@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Hey John, where in MD? I'm basically a lurker here - I've learned a heck of
> a lot about brewing reading your posts (and others, of course). I'm also in
> MD - Severn. It's near Ft. Meade...
I live in Ellicott City, but work in Annapolis. I assume you shop at
Annapolis Homebrew in Severn? I used to be good friends with one of the
owners, Brooks. We used to be in a band together before he opened the
store.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 23:24:38
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> <grossbea@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey John, where in MD? I'm basically a lurker here - I've learned a heck of
>> a lot about brewing reading your posts (and others, of course). I'm also in
>> MD - Severn. It's near Ft. Meade...
> I live in Ellicott City, but work in Annapolis. I assume you shop at
> Annapolis Homebrew in Severn? I used to be good friends with one of the
> owners, Brooks. We used to be in a band together before he opened the
> store.
Do you live in Dunloggin? If so, we must have met and don't know it.
Will you be at Patapsco Park on Saturday?
Dick
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 00:01:36
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:24:38 -0000, <rdadams@smart.net > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>> <grossbea@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hey John, where in MD? I'm basically a lurker here - I've learned a heck of
>>> a lot about brewing reading your posts (and others, of course). I'm also in
>>> MD - Severn. It's near Ft. Meade...
>
>> I live in Ellicott City, but work in Annapolis. I assume you shop at
>> Annapolis Homebrew in Severn? I used to be good friends with one of the
>> owners, Brooks. We used to be in a band together before he opened the
>> store.
>
> Do you live in Dunloggin? If so, we must have met and don't know it.
> Will you be at Patapsco Park on Saturday?
Yeah, I do live in Dunloggin, how'd you guess? No, wasn't planning on
being at the park. What's happening there saturday?
John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 01:19:22
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> <rdadams@smart.net> wrote:
>> Do you live in Dunloggin? If so, we must have met and
>> don't know it. Will you be at Patapsco Park on Saturday?
> Yeah, I do live in Dunloggin, how'd you guess?
I'll tell you in person sometime.
> No, wasn't planning on being at the park. What's happening
> there Saturday?
Free State Homebrewers Guild Picnic at Patapsco State Park.
Flyer is at: http://www.mdhomebrewers.com/summerparty.htm
While there, you can get a map of the park, by clicking on
"Patapsco Valley State Park, Hollofield Area- Shelter 300".
I believe there is a $2.00 per car parking fee. It's so
damn hot, park employees may not show up for work Saturday. :)
For anyone who is unfamiliar and may want to come. Patapsco
State Park is on Baltimore National Pike (Route 40) between
Catonsville and Ellicott City. You will need the map above.
If you are coming from the east, get off at the park entrance
as there is a tunnel under Route 40 to take you to the south
side of the park.
Dick
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 10:31:55
From: grossbea
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Hey John, I'm sure you meant AHB in Severna Park, not Severn?
Coincidentally, I happen to live in Severn, not Severna Park :-)
I usually buy at MD Homebrew in Columbia. AHB and MDHB are probably
equidistant from my home (at least in driving time), but I usually shop at
MDHB because I work at BWI. It's easier for me to stop in Columbia on my
way home than to travel to Severna Park. I have bought at AHB, however, and
while I'm not real familiar with the owners, I'm sure I'd recognize Brooks.
I've had some very nice conversations whenever I've been there...
Al
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnebtvat.l89.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:34:54 -0400, <grossbea@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey John, where in MD? I'm basically a lurker here - I've learned a heck
>> of
>> a lot about brewing reading your posts (and others, of course). I'm also
>> in
>> MD - Severn. It's near Ft. Meade...
>
> I live in Ellicott City, but work in Annapolis. I assume you shop at
> Annapolis Homebrew in Severn? I used to be good friends with one of the
> owners, Brooks. We used to be in a band together before he opened the
> store.
>
>
> John.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 15:30:17
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:31:55 -0400, <grossbea@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Hey John, I'm sure you meant AHB in Severna Park, not Severn?
> Coincidentally, I happen to live in Severn, not Severna Park :-)
Doh! Sorry about that.
> I usually buy at MD Homebrew in Columbia.
Yeah, that's where I get my stuff to.
John.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 21:26:37
From: Craig Bennett
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
I live 5 minutes walk from the North Shore of Lake Ontario - there's
certainly no shortage of fresh water here, we're fortunate to have it
abundance. I cant imagine there ever will be a shortage unless theres a
disaster of epic proportions (major pollution spill or something)...however
if it gets hot enough for a prolonged period of time then the closest we
have to water restrictions in the summer is : Even numbered houses can only
use a hose on even days, odd # houses on odd days.
Not because of a shortage of water, but the capacity to treat it, pump it,
and maintain pressure, as well as capacity this also takes energy, and when
everyone is watering their lawns and has their AC cranked to the
max....well, then we have the hardship of not watering the lawn every day.
Our water is metered, but doesnt cost much.
Maybe a benefit of being buried under snow every year ??!!
Craig B
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnebsjop.ek6.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:58:06 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit>
> wrote:
>>
>> "John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnebqjbr.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>>> Doesn't the water just go back into the environment/ground, which is
>>> where
>>> it came from in the first place? I can understand wanting to conserve
>>> things that can be "used up". Water isn't something like gasoline, that
>>> once you burn it it's gone. All we do with water is "borrow" it
>>> temporarily
>>> and then return it back to the environment for reuse.
>>>
>>> If you're currently in the middle of a draught or something, then sure,
>>> I
>>> could understand being concerned about water usage. Other than that, I
>>> don't see any reason for wanting to conserve water other than the cost
>>> of
>>> your utility bill.
>>>
>>>
>>> John.
>>
>> If you lived where I do John you wouldn't make comments like that.
>> Adelaide,
>> my city, like most other Australian cities and towns are on permanent
>> water
>> restrictions - 365 days a year not just in summer. And, water is getting
>> more expensive.
>
> That's basically what I meant when I made the exception for draught
> conditions. IE, if you've got water usage restrictions, then it makes
> perfect sense to be worried about it. That's generally not something
> we run into in the US on a regular basis, at least the part of the US
> I'm in.
>
>
> John.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 19:57:07
From: Ice Hensley
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
I've read (and experienced) that the slower the water through the
chiller, the faster the cooling. If I have the water going fast through
the chiller, the exit/waste water is colder than when I slow it down to
a gentle flow. It seems that if the water moves too fast, it doesn't
have enough time to draw the heat from the wort.
Since your attachment is restricting the flow, the water has more time
to pick up more heat from the wort.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 13:51:14
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 17 Jul 2006 19:57:07 -0700, <enyawedneve@gmail.com > wrote:
> I've read (and experienced) that the slower the water through the
> chiller, the faster the cooling. If I have the water going fast through
> the chiller, the exit/waste water is colder than when I slow it down to
> a gentle flow. It seems that if the water moves too fast, it doesn't
> have enough time to draw the heat from the wort.
No, that's backwards. Many people think it works that way, but it's a
misconception. Under normal circumstances, the faster the flow the faster
the chilling.
What Steve is doing is a bit weird. I suspect that the restriction of
the spray nozel has a lot to do with it. If he had not added the sprayer
but instead just slowed his water down, I would expect that his chill times
would have increased.
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 17:38:02
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> <enyawedneve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've read (and experienced) that the slower the water through the
>> chiller, the faster the cooling. If I have the water going fast through
>> the chiller, the exit/waste water is colder than when I slow it down to
>> a gentle flow. It seems that if the water moves too fast, it doesn't
>> have enough time to draw the heat from the wort.
> No, that's backwards. Many people think it works that way, but it's a
> misconception. Under normal circumstances, the faster the flow the faster
> the chilling.
The temperature of the exit water is inversely related to rate
of the water flow, i.e., the slower the water flows, the warmer
it gets. Because of the initial temperature difference between
the water (60F - 15.5C) and the wort (212F) - 100C), a slower
water flow rate will transfer more heat per cubic foot of water
until the wort reaches an unkwown temperature at which point the
flow rate should be increased. My wild ass guess of this
unknown temperature would be between 95F (35C) and 122F (50C).
I know an engineer I could ask, but I don't want a seminar on
heat transfer.
Minimum chilling time will be achieved by using an optimal
water flow rate and that rate is a function of temperature
difference.
Dick
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 19:00:15
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:38:02 -0000, <rdadams@smart.net > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>> <enyawedneve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've read (and experienced) that the slower the water through the
>>> chiller, the faster the cooling. If I have the water going fast through
>>> the chiller, the exit/waste water is colder than when I slow it down to
>>> a gentle flow. It seems that if the water moves too fast, it doesn't
>>> have enough time to draw the heat from the wort.
>
>> No, that's backwards. Many people think it works that way, but it's a
>> misconception. Under normal circumstances, the faster the flow the faster
>> the chilling.
>
> The temperature of the exit water is inversely related to rate
> of the water flow, i.e., the slower the water flows, the warmer
> it gets. Because of the initial temperature difference between
> the water (60F - 15.5C) and the wort (212F) - 100C), a slower
> water flow rate will transfer more heat per cubic foot of water
Per cubic foot of water, yes. But the overall transfer will be higher
with a higher flow, IE more cubic feet.
Chilling efficiency can be thought of two different ways. Either you are
concerned with chilling vs time, or you are concerned with chilling vs water
usage. Most of the time, they are opposite one another.
As far as your beer is concerned, it's the time efficiency that is important.
You need to chill the beer down quickly enough that it achieves a good
cold break. The beer doesn't care how much water passes through the
chiller, it just cares about how fast you can get the temp down.
A faster flow rate means less time to chill but it also means more water is
used. A slower flow rate means less water is used but it also means that it
will take longer.
It's true that the flow rate makes less of a difference during the initial
chilling, since the temps are so spread apart anyway. If you wanted to
make a compromise between time vs water usage, then what you suggest will
work. IE, keep the rate relatively slower until you reach a certain point
and then speed it up. However, if all you care about is time, then having
the water moving faster the entire time will give the best results.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 21:57:00
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Ice Hensley" <enyawedneve@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1153191426.980181.189620@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I've read (and experienced) that the slower the water through the
> chiller, the faster the cooling. If I have the water going fast through
> the chiller, the exit/waste water is colder than when I slow it down to
> a gentle flow. It seems that if the water moves too fast, it doesn't
> have enough time to draw the heat from the wort.
If it is moving fast, it has less time to pick up heat, but more water is
carrying
heat away, thus faster cooling. If the outlet water is hotter, then it is
picking up
less energy than it would if it were cooler, because the temp difference is
less.
>
> Since your attachment is restricting the flow, the water has more time
> to pick up more heat from the wort.
>
So it gets hotter, and heat transfer is less.
Bob
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2006 21:53:21
From: Tom Biasi
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Steve/Aus" <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote in message
news:V0Xug.6865$tE5.6022@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper tubing with
>an outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap fittings. This time, in
>order to reduce water wastage, I put an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the
>end of the outlet hose and used the hot water for clean-up.
> This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably but,
> instead of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it, and by quite a
> bit. I dropped down to my target temperature in about half the time and
> with considerably less water. Am I the only one that has experienced this?
> Steve W (in Aus)
>
To cool the wort you need to transfer heat to the copper and then to the
cooling liquid.
The difference in temperature between the wort and the cooling elements is a
major factor.
More contact time with the cooling liquid will raise the temperature of the
cooling liquid more than less contact time will.
As the difference in the two temperatures becomes closer the efficiency of
the system degrades.
In other words, I don't know what you did to increase efficiency with your
method.
Tom
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 13:47:54
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:43:17 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote:
> I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper tubing with an
> outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap fittings. This time, in order
> to reduce water wastage, I put an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the end of
> the outlet hose and used the hot water for clean-up.
> This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably but, instead
> of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it, and by quite a bit. I
> dropped down to my target temperature in about half the time and with
> considerably less water. Am I the only one that has experienced this?
The only thing I can think of is the restriction on the end due to the
sprayer gave you some of the effect of a convoluted chiller. IE it
created turbulance in the water as it flowed through the chiller and allowed
more of the water to come into contact with the copper. Therefore a higher
efficiency.
Slowing down the flow leading to an increase in chilling is a bit backwards
from common sense... but hey, whatever works! ;)
John.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 23:35:53
From: Steve/Aus
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <spam@shagg.net > wrote in message
news:slrnebppnn.j5i.spam@weizen.shagg.net...
>> The only thing I can think of is the restriction on the end due to the
> sprayer gave you some of the effect of a convoluted chiller. IE it
> created turbulance in the water as it flowed through the chiller and
> allowed
> more of the water to come into contact with the copper. Therefore a
> higher
> efficiency.
>
> Slowing down the flow leading to an increase in chilling is a bit
> backwards
> from common sense... but hey, whatever works! ;)
>
>
> John.
This is not the first time I have encountered this phenomonem. 'Back in the
days' when car engines were basic things, I removed the thermostat and the
car ran hotter. When I asked a mechanic about it he said the water was
running through the system too quickly and gave me a restrictor to fit where
the thermostst was removed, which solved the problem.
However, I would suggest it is more to do with time in the heat exchanger
(the radiator) than flow through the engine.
In any case, regardless of the various theories put forward, I would suggest
some serious experimentation to find the true answer.
Steve W (in Aus)
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 03:29:50
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:35:53 GMT, <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote:
> This is not the first time I have encountered this phenomonem. 'Back in the
> days' when car engines were basic things, I removed the thermostat and the
> car ran hotter. When I asked a mechanic about it he said the water was
> running through the system too quickly and gave me a restrictor to fit where
> the thermostst was removed, which solved the problem.
> However, I would suggest it is more to do with time in the heat exchanger
> (the radiator) than flow through the engine.
Well, similar to the explanations on why faster water through the
chiller leads to better cooling, something else must have been going
on with your car. Just like with a chiller, the whole "doesn't spend
enough time" to heat/cool in the engine/radiator thing, while seeming
sensible, is actually a common misconception. Car cooling systems
don't really work like that either. It's usually confusing to try and
think of the water in the system seperately. Instead, think of the
system as a whole.
The most likely explanation I've heard before about cars with the thermostat
removed running hotter is that the plumbing of the radiator/hoses/block
wasn't designed to have an opening that large stuck in the middle of it.
Most people seem to think that in cases like this, you're actually getting
cavitation caused by the removed thermostat, which tends to mess up the
flow rate that the water pump would otherwise put out. An open
thermostat or restrictor that fits in it's place doesn't cool down the
engine by slowing the flow of water per say, but it does cause a smoother
flow to occur rather than the caviation so the pump essentially becomes
more efficient.
Anyway, it's not quite the same thing as a chiller.
> In any case, regardless of the various theories put forward, I would suggest
> some serious experimentation to find the true answer.
You're welcome to experiment, but the physics of faster flow meaning more
heat transfer (all else being equal) is pretty straight forward. I think
it's the "all else being equal" thing that is making a difference with your
chiller and spray nozel. IE, there is something else happening in the
chiller that is making the difference with the spray nozel attached other
than slower flow.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 08:45:36
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Another way to look at how the cooling goes up with increased
water flow. As you increase flow, the outlet temp goes down. This
means that the temp of the last part of the cooler in the wort is
lower than with less flow. If the temp is lower, it seem obvious that
more wort heat will be conducted into the cooler.
The cooler gets exactly the same heat pickup per unit length
at the inlet end of the cooler's contact with the wort at various
water flows because the internal water hasn't gotten warmed yet.
Faster flow will decrease the loss of heat transfer
due to warming of the heat exchanger along its length.
Bob
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 18:05:47
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Steve/Aus" <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote in message
news:tfevg.7327
> This is not the first time I have encountered this phenomonem. 'Back in the
> days' when car engines were basic things, I removed the thermostat and the
> car ran hotter. When I asked a mechanic about it he said the water was
> running through the system too quickly and gave me a restrictor to fit where
> the thermostst was removed, which solved the problem.
> However, I would suggest it is more to do with time in the heat exchanger
> (the radiator) than flow through the engine.
> In any case, regardless of the various theories put forward, I would suggest
> some serious experimentation to find the true answer.
I took the thermostat out of a car once and it would never warm up. The heater
was useless. I even gave up on the 160F vs 190F test due to poor heater
performance.
Bob
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 21:07:25
From: Tom Biasi
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
>
> I took the thermostat out of a car once and it would never warm up. The
> heater
> was useless. I even gave up on the 160F vs 190F test due to poor heater
> performance.
>
> Bob
>
>
Some mechanics still believe you can't charge a battery on a concrete floor.
Tom
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 03:20:21
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
We ought to get Dan Listermann into this discussion because he
makes chillers.
I have also posed this question to a Profession Engineer.
Dick
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 03:35:57
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:20:21 -0000, <rdadams@smart.net > wrote:
> We ought to get Dan Listermann into this discussion because he
> makes chillers.
>
> I have also posed this question to a Profession Engineer.
To be clear... what question?
John.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 11:19:16
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> <rdadams@smart.net> wrote:
>> We ought to get Dan Listermann into this discussion because he
>> makes chillers.
>>
>> I have also posed this question to a Profession Engineer.
> To be clear... what question?
What is the effect of the rate of water flow on the cooling time
of 10 gallons of wort where the wort is being cooled from 212F
to 68F (100C 20C).
I suggested she estimate a standard water flow rate at a garden
hose spigot, use that water flow rate and another rate of 75%
of that rate, and use 59F (15C) as the water temperature.
Is the higher flow rate more effective than the lower flow rate
when cooling from 212F to 140F (100C to 60C)?
There is no question in my mind that the faster rate is more
effective when the temperature difference is lower.
==========
After thinking about this more than it deserves, I have come
to a few thoughts.
- The objective is not to put cold into the wort, but to take
the heat out of the wort.
- The amount of contact surface betwen the chiller and the wort
should have a more significant effect on overall cooling time
than should a variation in the flow rate of the water. Thus,
more and larger tubing are the way to go.
I'm sure there is more to this.
Dick
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 16:44:17
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Her initial response was:
"I'll have to think about this one. I don't remember a lot
about heat transfer rates. I think my brother-in-law might be
a better source. I do have a few questions though. Is the
cold water run top to bottom or bottom to top? Do you have
any idea of the flow rate of the water without the sprinkler
on the chiller? I know from experience, and from my father,
that when running an air conditioner you get more cooling
power out of a system with a slower fan speed that a faster
one.
The faster one does blow more air across the heat transfer
coils but the air has less time in contact with the coils
to actually exchange heat. The air movement makes us think
it is cooler as the skin senses the movement when it really
isn't cooler. I suspect this same phenomena is experienced
with your wort cooler. Hence, someone may have caught on to
something. I'll get back to you on this later."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:42:53
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Dick Adams wrote:
> The faster one does blow more air across the heat transfer
> coils but the air has less time in contact with the coils
> to actually exchange heat. The air movement makes us think
> it is cooler as the skin senses the movement when it really
> isn't cooler. I suspect this same phenomena is experienced
> with your wort cooler. Hence, someone may have caught on to
> something. I'll get back to you on this later."
The problem with this argument is that our goal is not to modify the
temperature of the material running through the coil (refrigerant in the
case of the A/C unit; water in the case of the wort chiller). We are
trying to modify the temperature of the *OTHER* mass (the air in the case
of the A/C, and the wort in the case of the wort chiller).
Yes, the faster the air blows over the A/C coils, less energy is transfered
(per unit mass) from the air to the coils. This is exactly the same thing
that happens as water flows faster through the wort chiller --- less energy
is transfered (per unit mass) from the wort to the chiller. In *BOTH*
cases, however, the *total* amount of energy transfered increases as the
flow increases simply because more mass is involved.
Since the objective of an A/C is to reduce the temperature of the air, you
maximize this by reducing the air flow. If the objective was to increase
the temperature of the refrigerant, the device would work better by
increasing the flow.
Similarly, if the objective of a wort chiller was to heat the water passing
through it, then you would by all means reduce the flow. But since the
objective (in my case, anyway) is to reduce the temperature of the wort,
then the best result will be obtained when you increase the flow.
BTW: I also happen to have a degree in engineering, although the reason I
got it was simply because I was always so fascinated with trains! Imagine
my surprise when the professors kept droning on and on and on about vectors
and tolerances and something I came to know as Thermogoddammics! Think
about it! A whole field of study that has nothing more to prove than that
the whole freakin' universe is going from bad to worse, and there ain't a
dang thing any of us can do about it! <sigh > It's so depressing.]
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 17:49:18
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:42:53 -0500, <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote:
> Dick Adams wrote:
>
>> The faster one does blow more air across the heat transfer
>> coils but the air has less time in contact with the coils
>> to actually exchange heat. The air movement makes us think
>> it is cooler as the skin senses the movement when it really
>> isn't cooler. I suspect this same phenomena is experienced
>> with your wort cooler. Hence, someone may have caught on to
>> something. I'll get back to you on this later."
>
> The problem with this argument is that our goal is not to modify the
> temperature of the material running through the coil (refrigerant in the
> case of the A/C unit; water in the case of the wort chiller). We are
> trying to modify the temperature of the *OTHER* mass (the air in the case
> of the A/C, and the wort in the case of the wort chiller).
>
> Yes, the faster the air blows over the A/C coils, less energy is transfered
> (per unit mass) from the air to the coils. This is exactly the same thing
> that happens as water flows faster through the wort chiller --- less energy
> is transfered (per unit mass) from the wort to the chiller. In *BOTH*
> cases, however, the *total* amount of energy transfered increases as the
> flow increases simply because more mass is involved.
>
> Since the objective of an A/C is to reduce the temperature of the air, you
> maximize this by reducing the air flow. If the objective was to increase
> the temperature of the refrigerant, the device would work better by
> increasing the flow.
Exactly. I was going to reply with something similar, but you said it
a lot better than I could.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 15:39:02
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:19:16 -0000, <rdadams@smart.net > wrote:
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net> wrote:
>> <rdadams@smart.net> wrote:
>
>>> We ought to get Dan Listermann into this discussion because he
>>> makes chillers.
>>>
>>> I have also posed this question to a Profession Engineer.
>
>> To be clear... what question?
>
> What is the effect of the rate of water flow on the cooling time
> of 10 gallons of wort where the wort is being cooled from 212F
> to 68F (100C 20C).
It's basic physics. If you want to quantify the time difference, there
are several factors. The temp of the water as well as what flow rates
you are comparing... etc.
> Is the higher flow rate more effective than the lower flow rate
> when cooling from 212F to 140F (100C to 60C)?
Yes, but not as much as it will be going from 140F to 68F.
> There is no question in my mind that the faster rate is more
> effective when the temperature difference is lower.
It's always going to be "more" effective. It's just the level of "more"
that will change.
Like I said in the other post though. If you're looking for a compromise
between time vs usage, then what you are getting at makes perfect sense.
Run the water slower to start with, and then speed it up as the wort
temp gets lower. People do the same thing today using ice in a prechiller.
It doesn't make much sense to use the ice right away. Just go with
straight water until the wort temp gets lower and then start to use
the ice/prechiller.
> - The objective is not to put cold into the wort, but to take
> the heat out of the wort.
Scientifically, there's really no such thing as "cold". Adding cold
into the wort and taking heat out is the same thing. "Hot" and "cold" are
just relative measurements of heat energy.
> - The amount of contact surface betwen the chiller and the wort
> should have a more significant effect on overall cooling time
> than should a variation in the flow rate of the water. Thus,
> more and larger tubing are the way to go.
But even then, water flow will still be a factor. IE, given two
larger diameter chillers, the one with faster flow will still chill
more quickly. A larger chiller will probably out perform a smaller
chiller if both have the same flow rate. Can you get better chilling
from a larger chiller running slowly versus a smaller chiller running
fast... probably, but it all depends on the difference in speed.
John.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 12:00:03
From: Ice Hensley
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Ahhhhh. I see now. Very well explained by all...guess we can call Myth
Busters and tell 'em not to worry because my slower/hotter theory has
been debunked! :-)
D'oh!
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 19:14:58
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 18 Jul 2006 12:00:03 -0700, <enyawedneve@gmail.com > wrote:
> Ahhhhh. I see now. Very well explained by all...guess we can call Myth
> Busters and tell 'em not to worry because my slower/hotter theory has
> been debunked! :-)
Yeah, but based on episodes I've seen it's probably 50/50 as to which
answer they would have agreed with.
John.
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 10:13:42
From: Ice Hensley
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
If the output water is hotter, hasn't it picked up more of the heat
energy from the wort?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 18:49:23
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 18 Jul 2006 10:13:42 -0700, <enyawedneve@gmail.com > wrote:
> If the output water is hotter, hasn't it picked up more of the heat
> energy from the wort?
No. The output water is hotter, but there is a lot less of it than
if it were running faster. You can't think of it in terms of each "unit"
of water and how much time it spends in the chiller or now much heat
it picks up based on the temp when it exits. Those concepts by themselves
don't mean anything, and usually end up giving people the wrong impression.
Ignore the water, and think of the chiller/water as a single entity. The
colder the chiller stays, the more heat it will absorb from the wort. The
hotter the chiller gets, the less heat it will continue to absorb.
For example, lets assume for a second that instead of a chiller you use
a solid bar of copper. If the bar of copper is really cold when you place
it in the wort it will absorb more heat than a really hot bar of copper
placed in the wort.
So, in effect, you want the chiller to stay as cold as possible while you
are chilling. You achieve this with a faster flow rate. Yes, an individual
sample of water coming out of the chiller will be colder this way, but
if you try and think of it in those terms you'll just get confused. The
total amount of heat energy that is removed actually goes up.
Another way to explain it... think of the case of a cold water bath. IE,
you put the pot into a bath of water to chill it. Lets assume two different
sized "baths". One is a tub of water and the other is a swimming pool of
water. Both of them start out at the same temp before you put in the pot
of boiling hot wort. At the end, the tub of water will be a lot hotter
than the swimming pool of water. However, the swimming pool will chill
down the pot a lot faster because it stays colder.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 12:44:37
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Ice Hensley wrote:
> If the output water is hotter, hasn't it picked up more of the heat
> energy from the wort?
For any given mass of water, if one unit is hotter than another, then by
definition the hotter one has more kinetic energy. The key phrase here is
"for any given mass". Perhaps you already see where this is going.
Let's say you pass 1 unit mass of water through your chiller and its
temperature raises 50 degrees. The water has gained 50 "mass-degrees" of
kinetic energy. The law of conservation of energy dictates that the wort
has *lost* that same amount of energy. It's temperature has gone down by
some amount proportional to its own mass.
Now let's say you pass 10 units of water through your chiller and this time,
the water temperature raises only 10 degrees. The water has gained 100
"mass-degrees" of energy; similarly, the wort has lost that much energy,
and once again, its temperature has gone down by an amount proportional to
its own mass.
Which one of these has lowered the temperature of the wort more? It should
be obvious that the second scenario has lowered the temperature of the wort
by twice as much. The temperature of the water coming out of the chiller
is irrelevant unless you also consider its volume (mass).
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:41:49
From: Tom Biasi
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Larry Bristol" <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote in message
news:12bq7g751kte48a@corp.supernews.com...
> Ice Hensley wrote:
>
>> If the output water is hotter, hasn't it picked up more of the heat
>> energy from the wort?
>
> For any given mass of water, if one unit is hotter than another, then by
> definition the hotter one has more kinetic energy. The key phrase here is
> "for any given mass". Perhaps you already see where this is going.
>
> Let's say you pass 1 unit mass of water through your chiller and its
> temperature raises 50 degrees. The water has gained 50 "mass-degrees" of
> kinetic energy. The law of conservation of energy dictates that the wort
> has *lost* that same amount of energy. It's temperature has gone down by
> some amount proportional to its own mass.
>
> Now let's say you pass 10 units of water through your chiller and this
> time,
> the water temperature raises only 10 degrees. The water has gained 100
> "mass-degrees" of energy; similarly, the wort has lost that much energy,
> and once again, its temperature has gone down by an amount proportional to
> its own mass.
>
> Which one of these has lowered the temperature of the wort more? It
> should
> be obvious that the second scenario has lowered the temperature of the
> wort
> by twice as much. The temperature of the water coming out of the chiller
> is irrelevant unless you also consider its volume (mass).
>
> --
> Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
> http://www.doubleluck.com
Very well put Larry,
Most of us are saying the same thing but you put it nicely.
Would you by chance be a teacher?
Tom
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:09:16
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Tom Biasi wrote:
> Very well put Larry,
> Most of us are saying the same thing but you put it nicely.
> Would you by chance be a teacher?
Thanks! I'm not a teacher, but both my parents were. Perhaps it's because
I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 16:41:37
From: Tom Biasi
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Larry Bristol" <larry.remove@remove.doubleluck.com > wrote in message
news:12bqcesgrkidm70@corp.supernews.com...
> Tom Biasi wrote:
>
>> Very well put Larry,
>> Most of us are saying the same thing but you put it nicely.
>> Would you by chance be a teacher?
>
> Thanks! I'm not a teacher, but both my parents were. Perhaps it's
> because
> I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
>
> --
> Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
> http://www.doubleluck.com
>
Your parents ability to impart knowledge has rubbed off on you.
Tom (teacher)
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2006 12:36:34
From: The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Ice Hensley wrote:
> If the output water is hotter, hasn't it picked up more of the heat
> energy from the wort?
>
Sure -- but that doesn't mean that the cooling was more efficient.
Let's say the water wasn't moving through the coils at all, but just
stood there for 10 minutes before we flushed it out. The water would be
quite hot, but you wouldn't have gotten much cooling because of the
small volume of cooling water involved. Now, imagine the water was
moving very slowly.
Sure, the outgoing water would be hot, but you'd have had less much
energy transfered than if the water were moving rapidly (ie, more
cooling water used).
Finally, imagine the water is moving through the coils very quickly (
more total cooling water is being used). While a given volume of cooling
water picks up less energy, there's more cooling water to start with.
Moreover, the transfer is more efficient because the temp diff between
the cooling water and the wort is higher.
Of course, if you calculate the total volume of water used in cooling
into your efficiency calcs, then the efficency equation probably
changes, since most of us are probably only interested in cooling as
quickly as possible without regard for overall water usage, as long as
that usage is at least somewhat reasonable.
--
(Replies: cleanse my address of the Mark of the Beast!)
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
Coauthor with Dennis Clark of "Building Robot Drive Trains".
Buy several copies today!
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 10:00:25
From: Scotty B
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Thanks for the lesson Richard. Lots of good info.
I have another question. I would think that if you had the hot wort
itself running through a tube and another tube enveloping the wort tube
with water flowing in the opposite direction that you could get really
efficient cooling. I bring this up because I remember from one of my
Biology classes that this is essentially how fish 'breathe'. The
oxygen-containing water flows through the gills in one direction and
the blood that absorbs the oxygen flows in the opposite direction,
maximizing oxygen uptake.
Anyway, does anybody know if there is a product like this out there? I
imagine if the wort came out at the right temperature, you could
transfer it directly to your fermenting vessel...
Scotty B
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 17:41:43
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 19 Jul 2006 10:00:25 -0700, <michaellasalle@gmail.com > wrote:
> Thanks for the lesson Richard. Lots of good info.
>
> I have another question. I would think that if you had the hot wort
> itself running through a tube and another tube enveloping the wort tube
> with water flowing in the opposite direction that you could get really
> efficient cooling. I bring this up because I remember from one of my
> Biology classes that this is essentially how fish 'breathe'. The
> oxygen-containing water flows through the gills in one direction and
> the blood that absorbs the oxygen flows in the opposite direction,
> maximizing oxygen uptake.
> Anyway, does anybody know if there is a product like this out there? I
> imagine if the wort came out at the right temperature, you could
> transfer it directly to your fermenting vessel...
Yeah, it's called a counterflow chiller. Lots of brewers use them.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:28:51
From: Richard Kaszeta
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Scotty B" <michaellasalle@gmail.com > writes:
> I have another question. I would think that if you had the hot wort
> itself running through a tube and another tube enveloping the wort tube
> with water flowing in the opposite direction that you could get really
> efficient cooling.
Correct. And you can buy such counterflow wort chillers (for example,
http://www.midwestsupplies.com/products/ProdByID.aspx?ProdID=4486 for
a convoluted tube-in-tube one, and
http://www.midwestsupplies.com/products/ProdByID.aspx?ProdID=7142 for
a parallel channel counterflow exchanger). It's not all that hard to
make your own, either, with copper tubing for the inner tube, and a
garden hose for the outer tube.
The caveat is that you need some way to drive the wort through the
chiller, either pressure (putting the wort vessel above the fermentor
and using the height difference to drive it, but for some counterflow
chillers this doesn't get you a good flow rate), or using a pump (and
it's somewhat pricey to get a wort pump that will pump hot wort).
> Anyway, does anybody know if there is a product like this out there? I
> imagine if the wort came out at the right temperature, you could
> transfer it directly to your fermenting vessel...
Bingo. A lot of brewers do this (I don't, my tap water is always very
cold, so my immersion cooler does the job in 5 minutes...)
--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:17:33
From: Larry Bristol
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Scotty B wrote:
> I have another question. I would think that if you had the hot wort
> itself running through a tube and another tube enveloping the wort tube
> with water flowing in the opposite direction that you could get really
> efficient cooling.
> [...]
> > Anyway, does anybody know if there is a product like this out there? I
> imagine if the wort came out at the right temperature, you could
> transfer it directly to your fermenting vessel...
I believe you'll find that such a product already exists. Look for a
"Counter Flow Wort Chiller".
--
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:34:28
From: trequites
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
I got this information from an air conditioning website, but most of it
is relevant to cooling wort with an immersion chiller:-
The heat transfer is dependent on three things:
The heat transfer coefficient
The effective surface area
The log-mean temperature difference
If you increase any of these then you increase the heat transfer.
The heat transfer coefficient is the overall rate of heat flow through
the coil from the wort to the cooling water. There are 3 things which
affect this:
The film resistance on the outside of the coil
The film resistance on the inside of the coil
The thermal conductance of the copper coil
Not much can be done to alter the thermal conductance of the coil, but
the film resistance on both the inside and outside of the coil can be
reduced by increasing the velocity or increasing the turbulence. That's
why a/c chiller coils have corrugated fins. Apparently, turbulent water
flow in the coil reduces resistance to heat transfer, too.
(In chiller terms, increase the velocity on the outside by stirring the
wort, increase it on the inside by increasing the water flow).
The effective surface area of the coil can be increased by lengthening
the coil or adding fins.
The log-mean temperature difference is given by (t2 - t1)/(ln(t2/t1))
where t2 is the larger of the temperature differences and t1 is the
smaller of the temperature differences.
If we were talking about a counter-flow chiller for example, with water
going in at 20C and out at 80C, wort going in at 90C and out at 30C, t2
would be the difference between the two inlet temperatures (90-20) and
t1 the difference between the two outlet temperatures (80-30). In our
immersion chiller, t2 is the difference between the temperature of the
wort and the temperature of the inlet water and t1 is the difference
between the temperature of the wort and the water outlet temperature.
As far as I can work out using a few representative values, to get a
maximum log-mean temperature difference in an immersion chiller the
water inlet temperature needs to be as cold as possible and the outlet
temperature needs to be as hot as possible.
Effectively what this means is that you need to stir the wort, have the
maximum water flow (remember - maximum water velocity earlier)
consistent with keeping the water outlet temperature as near to the
wort temperature as you can. Maybe one day I'll try monitoring the
outlet temperature and adjusting the flow to suit, but at the moment I
normally have a high water flow initially, and then crank it down as
the wort cools.
I collect the water in an old fermentation bucket and use it for
washing and sterilising my equipment.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 15:59:52
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 19 Jul 2006 05:34:28 -0700, <spam.me.trequites@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> As far as I can work out using a few representative values, to get a
> maximum log-mean temperature difference in an immersion chiller the
> water inlet temperature needs to be as cold as possible and the outlet
> temperature needs to be as hot as possible.
No, the hotter the outlet temp the slower your chilling will be. In
regards to adjusting the flow rate, you want the outlet temp to be as
cold as possible.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 08:09:52
From: Richard Kaszeta
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"trequites" <spam.me.trequites@spamgourmet.com > writes:
> The log-mean temperature difference is given by (t2 - t1)/(ln(t2/t1))
> where t2 is the larger of the temperature differences and t1 is the
> smaller of the temperature differences.
>
> ..
>
> As far as I can work out using a few representative values, to get a
> maximum log-mean temperature difference in an immersion chiller the
> water inlet temperature needs to be as cold as possible and the outlet
> temperature needs to be as hot as possible.
Nope.
The max LMTD you can get in a chiller is when the outlet temperature
is equal to the inlet temperature (t2 approaches t1, in your
equation), which is what happens if you can supply enough coolant that
the overall cooling is small relative to the overall thermal contant
of the cooling. As this happens, the expression above for LMTD
approachs t1.
In other words, if you are trying to cool the fastest, and your tap
water is of constant temperature, you should run the water as fast as
possible.
If you're trying to minimize water use, that's a completely different thing.
--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 04:47:10
From: Scotty B
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Dick Adams wrote:
> - The amount of contact surface betwen the chiller and the wort
> should have a more significant effect on overall cooling time
> than should a variation in the flow rate of the water. Thus,
> more and larger tubing are the way to go.
>
> I'm sure there is more to this.
>
> Dick
What about the surface to volume ratio of the water within the tube. I
believe that more, smaller tubing would be the way to go since the
water is what is taking the heat out of the system.
Also, I'm not sure the effect this would have (not an engineer, you
know?) but wouldn't attaching a spray nozzle to the outlet end of a
wort chiller not just reduce flow, but also increase the pressure of
the water within the tube? I'm just speculating here, but more pressure
would mean more molecules in the same amount of area, including those
in contact with the copper tubing. Maybe this would have no effect at
all (again, not an engineer). Also, is it possible that water under
pressure could hold more heat? Could this be at all similar to a
compressor on a refrigerator? Again just speculating, I actually have
little idea how this stuff works.
Scotty B
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 15:42:42
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 19 Jul 2006 04:47:10 -0700, <michaellasalle@gmail.com > wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure the effect this would have (not an engineer, you
> know?) but wouldn't attaching a spray nozzle to the outlet end of a
> wort chiller not just reduce flow, but also increase the pressure of
> the water within the tube? I'm just speculating here, but more pressure
> would mean more molecules in the same amount of area, including those
> in contact with the copper tubing.
One rather interesting thing about water is that it is *really* difficult
to compress. Any pressure increase you're going to get from a spray nozel
is not going to change anything about the molecular density of the water.
You'd need some rediculously high pressures in order to do that.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 07:50:11
From: Richard Kaszeta
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Scotty B" <michaellasalle@gmail.com > writes:
> What about the surface to volume ratio of the water within the tube. I
> believe that more, smaller tubing would be the way to go since the
> water is what is taking the heat out of the system.
Correct, as long as you have the pressure to drive it. As the tubes
get smaller, the flow rate drops, and at some point it quickly becomes
counterproductive (you've dropped the flow more than you've increased
the surface to volume ratio). So for a given pressure and temperature
difference, there is an optimal tube size. Since household plumbing
doesn't usually have all that much pressure, usually this optimal
tubing size is fairly large.
> Also, I'm not sure the effect this would have (not an engineer, you
> know?) but wouldn't attaching a spray nozzle to the outlet end of a
> wort chiller not just reduce flow, but also increase the pressure of
> the water within the tube? I'm just speculating here, but more pressure
> would mean more molecules in the same amount of area, including those
> in contact with the copper tubing.
Water is incompressible, so the density doesn't change with pressure.
> Also, is it possible that water under
> pressure could hold more heat?
For both liquids and gases, the ability of the material to hold heat
per unit mass (the specific heat) is generally independent of
pressure. It's usually fairly independent of temperature as well;
for example, over a very wide temperature and pressure range, liquid
water requires 1 calorie/g to warm it 1 degC, and with air at
atmospheric pressure, the specific heat only varies 30 percent from
room temperature to 2000 degrees C.
(This isn't true if something is boiling, since the boiling point and
amount of energy it takes to boil vary quite a bit with pressure---but
nothing is (or should be :) ) boiling in a wort chiller).
Getting back to the original question... if you've done nothing but
slow down the water flow rate, the cooling time will be longer, so if
the original poster is seeing a faster cooldown, something else is
coming into play, be it lower tap water temperature, more agitation in
the wort, or something causing enhanced heat transfer in the chiller
(like introducing swirl to the water). Of these, the first two are
more likely, especially since a little mixing of the wort can greatly
affect the overall cooling rate.
(And yes, I am an engineer)
--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 20:35:51
From: Duke
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Steve/Aus" <adlab@bigponddotnetdotau.trashthisbit > wrote in message
news:V0Xug.6865$tE5.6022@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I use a typical immersion chiller, 60ft of coiled soft copper tubing with
>an outlet and inlet for standard garden hose snap fittings. This time, in
>order to reduce water wastage, I put an adjustable sprayer nozzle on the
>end of the outlet hose and used the hot water for clean-up.
> This reduced water flow through the chiller quite considerably but,
> instead of reducing chilling efficiency it increased it, and by quite a
> bit. I dropped down to my target temperature in about half the time and
> with considerably less water. Am I the only one that has experienced this?
> Steve W (in Aus)
>
Question for the group then. The OP said that he decreased water flow and
that his wort cooled quicker than when he had increased water flow. Is the
consensus that the OP is simply wrong as there is no way that could have
happened ?
Just asking,
Duke
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 03:42:12
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:35:51 GMT, <sorry@no_spam.com > wrote:
> Question for the group then. The OP said that he decreased water flow and
> that his wort cooled quicker than when he had increased water flow. Is the
> consensus that the OP is simply wrong as there is no way that could have
> happened ?
>
> Just asking,
As I mentioned in my original reply. Slowing down the water flow will
not cool quicker by itself. There must be something else going on that
is causing it. I have no doubt that his cooling times are quicker, but
it's not because of the slower flow rate.
John.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 15:47:44
From: Richard Kaszeta
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
"Duke" <sorry@no_spam.com > writes:
> Question for the group then. The OP said that he decreased water flow and
> that his wort cooled quicker than when he had increased water flow. Is the
> consensus that the OP is simply wrong as there is no way that could have
> happened ?
There are plenty of ways this can happen, including tapwater being
colder than previous times, the wort being more agitated or stirred
(especially if you feed the cold water in at the bottom of the coil, a
little stirring will probably improve cooling a lot).
or several other things. It's not like he did a side-by-side test.
But, in general, the immersion chiller's performance is dictacted by
basic physics.
--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 03:45:24
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
On 19 Jul 2006 15:47:44 -0500, <rich@kaszeta.org > wrote:
> "Duke" <sorry@no_spam.com> writes:
>> Question for the group then. The OP said that he decreased water flow and
>> that his wort cooled quicker than when he had increased water flow. Is the
>> consensus that the OP is simply wrong as there is no way that could have
>> happened ?
>
> There are plenty of ways this can happen, including tapwater being
> colder than previous times, the wort being more agitated or stirred
> (especially if you feed the cold water in at the bottom of the coil, a
> little stirring will probably improve cooling a lot).
> or several other things. It's not like he did a side-by-side test.
The OP is an Aussie, isn't he? Isn't it winter over there now? I assume
this would imply that their tap water is a lot colder than it was during
the summer/fall.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 23:52:36
From: Dick Adams
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
> <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:
>> "Duke" <sorry@no_spam.com> writes:
>>> Question for the group then. The OP said that he decreased water flow
>>> and that his wort cooled quicker than when he had increased water flow.
>>> Is the consensus that the OP is simply wrong as there is no way that
>>> could have happened ?
>> There are plenty of ways this can happen, including tapwater being
>> colder than previous times, the wort being more agitated or stirred
>> (especially if you feed the cold water in at the bottom of the coil, a
>> little stirring will probably improve cooling a lot).
>> or several other things. It's not like he did a side-by-side test.
> The OP is an Aussie, isn't he? Isn't it winter over there now?
> I assume this would imply that their tap water is a lot colder
> than it was during the summer/fall.
You have a point there. Summers in OZ are normally as brutal as
this summer is on the east coast.
I have rethought my previous position. After discussing it with
a another engineer, I have concluded that I was wrong. Faster is
better. By how much, is another question!
Dick
|
| | |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 13:42:43
From: Denny Conn
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
Duke wrote:
> Question for the group then. The OP said that he decreased water flow and
> that his wort cooled quicker than when he had increased water flow. Is the
> consensus that the OP is simply wrong as there is no way that could have
> happened ?
>
> Just asking,
All I can tell ya is that that's the opposite of my own experience....
---------- >Denny
--
Life begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
| |
Date: 19 Jul 2006 13:14:19
From: trequites
Subject: Re: Improvement in Wort chilling
|
I don't know, it's a complicated business, isn't it? All I know is that
I usefully re-use all of the water that I've used for cooling and you
can't do much better than that.
|
|
