Jump to content
Georgeous

Best way to chill your mash????

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Georgeous said:

Does anyone have a diagram or automation / video of how you use this thing? Am i wrong in thinking you will need two pumps to make it work? one for cooling water from chill tank and one for the mash from mash tun?

You pump the mash from the top down and the coolant from the bottom up and of course you need 2 pumps.  I don't have an automated video but it couldn't be any simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Southernhighlander said:

You pump the mash from the top down and the coolant from the bottom up and of course you need 2 pumps.  I don't have an automated video but it couldn't be any simpler.

Of course you need to loop the mash circulation through the mash tun or  a fermenter because you will need to do multiple passes through the HX to complete the cooling process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2019 at 10:49 AM, Southernhighlander said:

 

This basic tube in tube HX design has been used for years.  Saying that they are prone clogging and are otherwise a bad design is like saying that the wheel is a bad design and doesn't work.   

Imagine if someone told you that the wheel is a bad design for rolling down the road.  Now you are in our shoes.  

 

It's possible to clog any slurry pipe.   You'll find entire texts devoted to 'slurry flow', as the concept is used in mining & mass-transfer.   I never suggested it was a bad design, but it's always important to understand the design limitations.   At sufficiently low flow rates you will get sedimentation 'sanding'  of the solids.

Edited by stevea
clarify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post-gelatinization, there isn’t much of a chance of sedimentation.  The viscosity is fairly high compared to water, and the remaining grain components are easily kept in suspension.  Maybe if you were pumping through an 8” pipeline, but not 1.5” or 2”.  If you are recirculating back to the tun, there is no reason to run a slow flow rate.  Faster the flow the better the efficiency, don’t get fooled thinking the smaller delta t is a problem.

In the dairy world these are a bit larger/longer since they are sized for single pass.  And those idiot dairy farmers didn’t bother to consider smaller inner tubes, they just added more straight through sections.  Clearly they spent too much time consuming their own product.

If you are recirculating, optimizing HX efficiency is a whole lot less important, since you can just trade time or adjust flow rate.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that 20-30 GPM on the mash recirculating works out well, on the glycol/water side, roughly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MG Thermal Consulting said:

It seems that 20-30 GPM on the mash recirculating works out well, on the glycol/water side, roughly the same.

Yep, that's what our original testing showed when we were running the prototypes. We tried several different variations including one with the tubing being dead level and our current design worked the best.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Silk City Distillers said:

Post-gelatinization, there isn’t much of a chance of sedimentation.  The viscosity is fairly high compared to water, and the remaining grain components are easily kept in suspension.  Maybe if you were pumping through an 8” pipeline, but not 1.5” or 2”.  If you are recirculating back to the tun, there is no reason to run a slow flow rate.  Faster the flow the better the efficiency, don’t get fooled thinking the smaller delta t is a problem.

In the dairy world these are a bit larger/longer since they are sized for single pass.  And those idiot dairy farmers didn’t bother to consider smaller inner tubes, they just added more straight through sections.  Clearly they spent too much time consuming their own product.

If you are recirculating, optimizing HX efficiency is a whole lot less important, since you can just trade time or adjust flow rate.

 

 

Mostly agree.  At gelatinization the amylopectics go into solution (assuming you have enough water or some alpha-amylase) reducing the amount of solids by 60-70%.  (oddly amylose is insoluble).  Also the viscosity increase makes the sedimentation velocity drop, but also reduces the Reynolds number (turbulence).   Of course the viscosity drops a lot more at sanctification and fermentation.

>>If you are recirculating back to the tun, there is no reason to run a slow flow rate.  Faster the flow the better the efficiency, don’t get fooled thinking the smaller delta t is a problem.

That's not my only use-case.   I need to flow milled wheat&rye from a 'gum' tank (~50C, arabinoxylan & hemicellulose degradation) to a gelatinization temp tank near 90C and I have waste-heat I could use to pre-heat it.  So not gelatinized, low flow rate, one-pass.   

>>And those idiot dairy farmers didn’t bother to consider smaller inner tubes

Maybe not such idiots,

https://www.dairyfoods.com/articles/92787-selecting-the-best-heat-exchanger-for-dairy-pasteurization

I see "dual tube",  tubes-in-shell and lpates from dairy HX vendors.

>If you are recirculating, optimizing HX efficiency is a whole lot less important, since you can just trade time or adjust flow rate.

Unless you are paying for water or to run a chiller.  You need velocity in the counterflow HX to improve heat exchange in a turbulent regime, and this additionally keeps the solids moreso in suspension.  Some have dimpled or corrugated tubes to improve turbulence.

I wish that spiral plate HX were available in a size I need - they have no issues w/ slurries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Roger said:

I'm of the opinion that the appropriate angle of the tube in tube, to best avoid sedementation drop out, is the same 1/4" in one foot that is use to move shit away from your home to your septic system. Which is coincidently, exactly what this thread has deteriorated into, a tube of shit. 

Lighten up ! 

Roger - your 2.5% grade in a 2" tube would dictate a minimum ~33gpm @ ~1meter/sec to keep it filled..  Yes that is adequate for both turbulent flow but only marginaly improves the turndown ratio.   Of course you need to be able to fill and empty the shell unlike ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Silk City Distillers said:

I’ve been in at least a hundred distilleries, and have never seen a single spiral plate HX in use.

The smallest one I've ever seen close-up was about 8ft diameter.  That was used in a chemical plant. I've been told they are sometimes used in petroleum cracking.

A Japanese company makes some tiny ones with a 1 to 3 m^2 transfer surface, but I'll wager the price is terrific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask why you would drain coolant?

That’s like saying you drain your fermenter cooling jackets when you don’t need to cool.  I don’t drain my still condensers when I’m not distilling.  I don’t drain my mash tun cooling jacket.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 5:54 AM, Roger said:

The above drawing misrepresents the process as it only represents a static view.. How could air be trapped inside a tube full of water, under pressure,  when the water "and air" are continuously being ejected out the end of the loop?  You're not talking about a sealed system like the brakes on your car, wherein any and all air and liquid is locked in. Tube in shell chillers are a flow under pressure, and the water in the shell is going to constantly replace any air while in operation. 

That is my same question.  As Hillary Clinton once said "what difference does it make"?

I am a week out from using my device and will report back.  However, in terms of mash crash cooling device design given my experience with wort heat exchangers, I cannot imagine anything more functional and operational user-friendly than this tube-in-tube pipe array.  Granted we are talking about a mash and not alcohol vapor, but tube-in-tube designs are the standard for distillation condensation heat exchange.  

Any efficiency deficit compared to other designs would likely be offset by the other benefits like ease of use, ease of cleaning, mobility, etc.   We are running a business not a science lab.  Perfection in scientific terms can be the enemy of the good for a business that has to cash flow at some point.  Trust me, I have dealt with that conflict many times in several other disciplines.  As a recovering big corporation IT executive, I was continually mediating the debate between the technology purist and the business side that needed a solution that got the job done for a reasonable cost. 

But, as I said before there is benefit in the differing opinions as long as they are delivered with respect for the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard -  Even if there was air entrapment in a non-sealed system that somehow could not escape, it would at the very least  cause turbulence in the laminar flow of the liquid. Now what is the net effect of turbulence in heat exchanging fluids ?

Paul - I would recommend you look at increasing the amount of space between the coolant returns and the ends of the shells, to increase air entrapment  turbulence (if there actually is any) so as to increase the efficiency of the heat exchanger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Roger said:

 

Paul - I would recommend you look at increasing the amount of space between the coolant returns and the ends of the shells, to increase air entrapment  turbulence (if there actually is any) so as to increase the efficiency of the heat exchanger. 

Roger,

We'll give that a try and check tye data against the test data for the current design.  I'll let you know the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what you do, there will always be the difference between theoretical and practical performance.

Manufacturers include a "safety factor" in all designs, signifying the practical application performance differences. What I have seen, more often than not, is somewhat incorrect extrapolation of performances along with sizing without testing those extrapolation values.  Of course this is for a manufacturer to decide and warranty.

Of course salesman cannot see this or they will try to argue that engineers are oversizing equipment which is why there are warranties.

As long as manufacturers live up to warranties and performances, that's the end of the conversation between supplier and user.

Everyone else's opinion is a mute point.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MG Thermal Consulting said:

As long as manufacturers live up to warranties and performances, that's the end of the conversation between supplier and user.

 

+1 for that.  Generally when I design, I allow for +20% at least FOS.  The last thing that I ever want is where customers come back to me and say whatever ........

 

In my kegging plant which we design and build and further which is highly automated and technically advanced ..... the bloody plant just goes on and on and on and at some point I need to tell the customer that I need to break the plant because I need to earn some call out money.  But more importantly so, I supply the plant up into Africa and travelling out there is expensive and so it needs to be bullet proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

It does go that way- I remember sweating bullets with a plant engineer when I sized up a chiller for chilling a huge jacketed tank filled with blood plasma!  It had to chill over a substantial range over hours of operation.  There is no way ro exactly figure it out, so we took the rough estimate and added out best extra S.F. and luckily we came out OK.  Sure didn't want to get sued and the engineer sure didn't want to get fired!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MG Thermal Consulting said:

Richard,

It does go that way- I remember sweating bullets with a plant engineer when I sized up a chiller for chilling a huge jacketed tank filled with blood plasma!  It had to chill over a substantial range over hours of operation.  There is no way ro exactly figure it out, so we took the rough estimate and added out best extra S.F. and luckily we came out OK.  Sure didn't want to get sued and the engineer sure didn't want to get fired!

 

I usually take the rough estimate and double or triple it.  Our Pro series and signature equipment agitators are around 3 time more hp than our competitors and our pro series condensers have around 4 times the condensing capacity on the average.  We typically go with thicker steel and copper than our competitors on the pro series and signature series stills.  Our prices are lower because of our low over head and lower mark ups. I built the business with no debt.

For the standard series the condensers are plenty large enough as are the agitators.  We test all jackets to 3 times the operation steam pressures.  My team leaders have long check lists concerning quality control testing and inspection.  Every distilling vessels goes through a 30 point inspection by me personally before it leaves here.   We work really hard to make sure that no issues arise.  By using the methods above we have been very successful with our designs.  Now, all of our distilling equipment designs have been proven by years of use in the field.

We have found that the fastest and most efficient way to crash cool mash with a heat exchanger, is a cooling coil in the mash tun.  We maximize the heat exchange surface area with the coil so that our mash tuns with crash cooling coils, crash cool in 1 hour.  Even our 2,500 gallon mash tun will crash cool in one hr with the coil. 

Because our pro series agitators are so heavy duty, you can leave 25% of the water out of the corn mash recipe and add it directly as cold water to crash cool from 190F down to the yeast throwing temp in less than 5 or 6 minutes in a 300 gallon mash tun.    Keep in mind that this will shorten the lifespan of the agitator and that the cooling coil in the tun is the best way to go.  Also you can steam inject and use the jackets of our tuns for crash cooling.  Even with our insulation jackets, crash cooling with the jacket is not as efficient as the coil in the tun.   Used properly, our tube and tube heat exchangers work great as well.  We currently quote all of our on the grain in mash tuns with crash cooling coils.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MG Thermal Consulting said:

Richard,

It does go that way- I remember sweating bullets with a plant engineer when I sized up a chiller for chilling a huge jacketed tank filled with blood plasma!  It had to chill over a substantial range over hours of operation.  There is no way ro exactly figure it out, so we took the rough estimate and added out best extra S.F. and luckily we came out OK.  Sure didn't want to get sued and the engineer sure didn't want to get fired!

 

Mike has worked for a lot of my customers and he does a really great job.  He is one of the most experienced chiller guys around when it comes to distilleries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“so what if there is a few ounces of water left in the jacket, How does the FDA feel about that ? “

I’m confused.  Why would the FDA care about water in any jacket?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...