Plate chillers and counterflow chillers are two tools brewers use to quickly chill wort before pitching yeast. But which works best? I’ve run these chillers through a series of tests and the results will, no joke, change the way I chill my wort forever.
The Brülosophy Show: Plate Chiller vs. Counterflow Chiller | BrüTech
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Sign up to be notified when we publish new content!
Thank you to our sponsors!
Brülosophy is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and other affiliated sites.
6 thoughts on “The Brülosophy Show: Plate Chiller vs. Counterflow Chiller | BrüTech”
Is there any way to get a written transcript of the video? There are times when it is difficult to watch a video (public places, poor cell coverage etc).
Sorry, at this time, no transcripts are available for The Brülosophy Show.
Sometimes the design of these trials baffles me. I’m glad there was recognition of the inlet water temp. That is likely the most important variable. First, you’ll never get colder than that temp. Second, as you approach it, the cooling effect logarithmically slows down. Third, (a general statement of #2) the cooling power of the water is proportional (logarithmically) to the difference at any given time between it and the wort, so a colder inlet water will always drop your wort temp faster. (because there is a greater difference between the two liquids. Colder water has more capacity to transfer heat-energy away from the wort.) The other major factor is contact which is influenced by time and surface area. (that is, volume per unit time) That last one is the only variance between plate, counterflow, and coil. And those can be adjusted between the designs by tube length or number of plates. (and in the case of the Exchillerator/Brutus, the added weed-whacker string to slow down the water – though it may be arguable to instead slow down the wort for maximal effect) In particular, the video pits a small plate chiller against a beast of a counterflow. A more fair comparison would have used a Therminator.
What I find baffling, is the tests run. Okay, a full-throttle versus reduced flow is important to illustrate, and not surprising, there was a difference between the methods, but not the designs. The flow is the only thing the brewer can adjust given any one design to affect the contact × surface variable. Neither of those tests are practical, as I explain below. The more real-world test was the recirculation, but this was botched. The question isn’t, “How cool does the design get the wort in 5 minutes?” (and then followed up with a reduced flow transfer) but rather, “How long does each design take to cool *the entire batch* before transfer?” Why is that question more important? Because that contact time × surface area variable I mentioned above is going to kick in at about the same variance in water-wort temperature, in this case of 70℉ inlet water, at about 100 ℉. That is when both designs will slow down significantly but one more than the other. And *that* will tell you which will cool faster. What difference does it make if say, the counterflow can get you colder instantly, if you have to reduce the flow and it takes 20 minutes to transfer at 74℉, when instead you can recirc the whole batch down to that temp in 12 minutes and then transfer in 2–3 minutes or less at full bore? While you’re transferring at reduce throttle, sure the wort coming out is fine, but the rest of the batch is sitting in the kettle well within the danger zone that entire time. (180–80℉)
The real test of any chiller is, “How fast does it get the *entire batch* below 80℉?” (given the temp of a particular chilling fluid) And *that* also tells you the speed and quality of cold-break formation. Sadly, while I applaud the effort to make the video and do the tests, it doesn’t answer that question.
AdrienM, can you share your source for “the danger zone”? I wonder if it’s a conventional wisdom myth. Many of us are whirlpooling at lower and lower temperatures these days, well below 180F.
If 180º-80º were dangerous would there be whirlpool hopping (i.e. introducing hops [not sanitized BTW] at temps in the so called danger zone?
Science moves forward by attentive experimentation, not by clinging to opinions and past guesses – no matter how reasonable they may seem. IMO this is what Brulosophy is all about.
Thanks Martin. How about water use of each method? It seems like the “reduced flow” method is most likely the least water efficient.