EPDM gaskets are perfectly fine and are what's used most in the food industry in general, though Viton is the real hardcore shizzle...
Spike Conical- observations and best practices
- Thread starter sheikyerbouti
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
CodeSection
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,655
- Reaction score
- 818
EPDM gaskets are perfectly fine and are what's used most in the food industry in general, though Viton is the real hardcore shizzle...
Thanks for the tip. Researching on one website it makes reference that Viton is FKM. On another website it says FKM is not FDA approved.
Am I understanding that correctly?
EPDM gaskets are perfectly fine and are what's used most in the food industry in general, though Viton is the real hardcore shizzle...
Viton is what nuclear shipping packages use so you know it's the good stuff
Zooksta
Well-Known Member
It looks like Spike started selling EPDM gaskets as accessories, not sure if they come standard with new fermenters now..
https://spikebrewing.com/collections/conical-accessories
Last edited:
I bought my conical first part of the year and mine came with both if I remember. At first glance I thought they were 'color coded' so you knew which one was the 1.5" (EPDM) and which were the 2" (silicon).
That is a bummer, but for me I don't think it will matter. I'm really sold on triclamps vs NPT since getting my fermenters. So much easier to clean and no teflon tape to deal with! On down the line, I can upgrading my kettles (at least the boil kettle) to one with triclamp ports. The Spike+ doesn't come with a thermo, so I could just use the one that comes with the CFs when I add a CF5 to my arsenal.
I did the same thing with the feet that comes with the conicals. I used the ones from my CF10 on my Flex+ until I added the casters that's on it now. I never understood why the Flex/Flex+ doesn't come with those. It's just $5 extra.
But I really don't understand why the CFs, a much more expensive fermenter, doesn't have the racking arm included when they are included with the Flex/Flex+.
There's a lot of things that I dont understand with these and many other products. It's almost like an engineered lack of features. In some cases this can be fixed with add-on accessories but in others your just kinda stuck.
For example, I'd almost buy a Flex+. Its soooo close to what I'm looking for. But, I've only got 2 ports; one for racking and the other is "flexible" so I'm forced to choose between using it with a thermowell or sample valve. But I want BOTH of those!
Thats what pushes me to the CF5 which is an actual conical with all the bells and whistles. BUT... It's lacking basic items (racking arm, thermowell) so you are pushed to a cart full of accessories that elevate its overall price.
I guess if I really dont care about dumping yeast (I do care) and want the cheapest option then the Flex+ with a sample valve would be the way to go. I could always just tape my temp probe to the side of it just like I did with my PET carboys for years. It comes down to a ~$344.00 decision point!
Last edited:
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
At least in theory, you can continuously dump on the bottom port until the beer is clear, then pull out of the racking port, without the need for a racking arm. Yes, it's dumb and pointless, and yes, it's an incredible waste of beer. But it's possible. It isn't possible to do that with the Flex+.
It's also theoretically possible that you could use the CF as a secondary tank only, adding flavorings, spices, or oak, for example. At which point I'm not sure if you need a racking arm. Of course, this is dumb, as the vessel is intentionally designed to be a primary AND secondary type vessel, so I don't know why someone would do primary in another vessel and transfer to this for secondary.
But probably more importantly, it keeps the price of the unit down, so it looks like Spike is a better bargain than it actually is. Not saying it isn't a good deal, mind you. It's just a little deceptive to the consumer that doesn't know anything about it (for example, a REALLY GOOD friend buying you a present, or a wife that needs to justify a cost), when you compare the $550 CF5 to the $960 SSUnitank.
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
I thought the same thing. I wanted to have a thermowell AND a sample port. And Spike doesn't add custom ports to their conicals or Flex+ lines.
But I would also like to be able to carb in place with a carb stone. In order to do that on the Flex+ (plus the thermowell and sample port and transfer port) you'd need to add two more ports. Which, at that point, the cost of adding all those ports would probably be less than the conical anyway.
Last edited:
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
Can anyone help me decide between the Sightglass Yeast Brink (Yeast Brink - 2) and the Mason Jar Yeast Brink (2 )?
I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about exposing a mason jar to pressure, so I'm leaning toward the Sightglass yeast brink.
Plus, if I get the sightglass yeast brink, and put a butterfly valve on top and bottom of the brink, I can pull it on and off and use it as either a yeast brink or a straight sightglass. And the cost of the sightlass yeast brink is about the same as buying a sightglass and mason jar yeast brink separately.
But I think the mason jar yeast brink would be easier to use for harvesting yeast.
Any suggestions?
I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about exposing a mason jar to pressure, so I'm leaning toward the Sightglass yeast brink.
Plus, if I get the sightglass yeast brink, and put a butterfly valve on top and bottom of the brink, I can pull it on and off and use it as either a yeast brink or a straight sightglass. And the cost of the sightlass yeast brink is about the same as buying a sightglass and mason jar yeast brink separately.
But I think the mason jar yeast brink would be easier to use for harvesting yeast.
Any suggestions?
How is it dumb and pointless to dump all the yeast until only clear beer will be transferred? If you still have yeast in suspension because you don't wait long enough for it to settle you'll be transferring it even with a racking arm as a racking arm is definitely not a filter. What's rather dumb and pointless IMHO is buying a conical with full dump capabilities and then just leaving your beer sitting on the yeast cake all the time and then playing around with a racking arm in order not to suck said yeast cake up. In any case, even if you use the fermenter properly and dump all the compacted yeast you'll still have yeast sticking to the cone walls that will drop once the cone itself starts emptying out, a racking arm will prevent that yeast being sucked out of the port together with the beer and the yeast will just keep sliding past it towards the dump valve.
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
That's what's pointless.
Without a racking arm, I'd have to dump 3x (rough number) the amount out the bottom in order to get the same clear beer I could get if I had the racking port without the racking arm.
Dump, wait for yeast to settle in cone, dump, wait for yeast to settle, dump, wait for yeast to settle, rack, waste first few pints or more as it isn't clear, then get clear beer. You'd lose less if you had the racking arm.
In theory, if you dialed in where that racking arm should be pointed, you could waste less beer.
There's between 0.25 and 1.2 gal between the bottom of the conical and the racking arm (depending on the position) on the CF5. If I dump a quart at a time until I get clear beer coming out, I have (not exactly, but you get the idea) one quart of clear beer left in the bottom of the conical that you won't pick up with the racking arm pointed in the down position. Say you dumped 2 quarts of yeast/trub/gunk. That means you lost 0.75 gal. Or, if you knew from experience and trial and error there was 0.5gal of yeast/trub/gunk, you could position the racking arm just where you needed to, leaving only trash in the bottom of the conical.
To me, it makes significantly more sense to put 5.75-6 gal of wort into the conical, then dump, and understand you're sacrificing 0.25g to the beer gods in the process. But brewing is a journey, not a destination.
There's a lot of things that I dont understand with these and many other products. It's almost like an engineered lack of features. In some cases this can be fixed with add-on accessories but in others your just kinda stuck.
For example, I'd almost buy a Flex+. Its soooo close to what I'm looking for. But, I've only got 2 ports; one for racking and the other is "flexible" so I'm forced to choose between using it with a thermowell or sample valve. But I want BOTH of those!
Thats what pushes me to the CF5 which is an actual conical with all the bells and whistles. BUT... It's lacking basic items (racking arm, thermowell) so you are pushed to a cart full of accessories that elevate its overall price.
I guess if I really dont care about dumping yeast (I do care) and want the cheapest option then the Flex+ with a sample valve would be the way to go. I could always just tape my temp probe to the side of it just like I did with my PET carboys for years. It comes down to a ~$344.00 decision point!
No brainer for me if I'm having to choose between the CF5 and Flex+ (and I own a Flex+)....CF5.
One thing you can do is put the sample valve on the racking port so you can have the thermo on the sample valve port. When it comes time to transfer, take the valve off, hit the butterfly with some star-san, attach your transfer line and you're off to the races. I had to do this when I bought my Flex because I forgot to add the sample valve to my purchase thinking it was already included. I almost made the same mistake with the racking arm when I bought the CF10 later.
I'm probably leaning toward the brink vs the jar for myself for the same reasons. I don't think the mason jar version would give me any problems as there's a NorCal video showing show him using a brink with the jar.
It's kinda like driving down the road to the store and back with no seatbelt on. Sure it's just down the road, and I don't think I'll get in a crash or pulled over but why chance it?
Buna-N is FDA Nitrile. I went back and checked and I did get FKM/Viton for all the 1.5" and 2" gaskets but had to do Buna-N on the 4" gasket I think the Viton one was quite expensive at the time but now I see not bad. I got them all on Amazon.
At the time I was looking to reduce oxygen permeability. I don't know if it really matters. The lid gasket is silicone and no getting rid of that.
I think this use of a racking arm comes from all our prior experience with glass carboys and siphons. I initially tried doing this and that lasted one batch. Getting the orientation just right while watching beer flow through a hose was not easy and I still clogged a poppet or two once I started filling kegs. Once that clogged the closed transfer was a fail as I had to remove the keg post to clean it out. Not a relaxing kegging day at all.
I've decided the racking arm is really designed to avoid pulling your beer over the glob of yeast/hop/trub that is probably sitting just inside your racking port. If you pull the beer over that glob attempting a closed transfer you will probably end up clogging poppets
What I am doing now is positioning the racking arm pointed straight down and dumping yeast and trub a few times until I am seeing beer in the sight glass. I brew with US-05 which I find to be a pretty sticky yeast and a lot of dry hops so it never gets completely clear but still once I see some beer thats good enough. Key is don't dump too much at once and do it 2-3 times. Now there may (lol may) still be yeast stuck to cone walls but the racking arm itself is in clear beer in the middle of the cone. The volume of that beer and gunk I wasn't able to get out through the racking arm is 0.6 gallons and I plan for that waste (and the waste from all the other dumping) in recipe design.
CodeSection
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,655
- Reaction score
- 818
Glacier Tanks has those larger gaskets in EPDM. Thus, I ended up with 1.5", 2", 3", 4". I viewed other websites on Viton/FKM gaskets and more are saying they are not FDA approved.....
CodeSection
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,655
- Reaction score
- 818
They both have been spot on in describing the true value of having a racking arm to avoid the yeast that is sticking to the fermenters walls and would be in the the port itself.
jekeane
Well-Known Member
I have the mason jar brink and don’t care for it. I launched a jar off under about 6 psi.
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
That was my concern.
Honestly, I'm moving from glass carboys due to the "glass danger" inherent in doing pressure transfers. So I can't imagine going to a conical and then jumping right back into the same arena with a glass yeast brink.
chpueblo22
Member
That’s awesome.
I got to meet Jay when i up was in redding at his store one time. I bought the mason jar hop randall from him, and asked him about the same thing. I was concerned about using psi on a glass jar.
He told me when they did pressure tests the lid always failed first- major explosions of hops, etc. but not glass.
So... i felt OK about 10 psi when i used it BUT... i always made sure there was some protection between me and it.
Using glass does seem scary tho
Aren't canning jars made to have some amount of psi tho? I have been reading about people canning and it is all about hitting 15psi. So... i dunno.
Stand
Well-Known Member
Pressure canning the lid is like a one way valve, so internal pressure should be same as vessel.
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
I thought they were meant to hold negative pressure, not positive pressure. I don't have a clue if that matters though. Although it reminds me of a futurama episode.
I've heard that before. Although in the past I heard that the rim of the JAR broke off before the body exploded, not that the metal lid failed.
But I people who've sealed up unfinished yeast starters and put them in their fridge. They kept fermenting, and eventually exploded. Denny Conn talks about picking shards of glass out of the walls of his fridge under just those circumstances. It could be that the yeast brink doesn't have support on the bottom, so is being held by the lid itself, which distributes the weight and pressure differently than a jar resting on its bottom. But I don't know.
But, even if its unlikely to break, occasionally mason jars get cracked in shipment (or at home) that you can't initially see. I've also seen some fairly wonky ones sitting in 12 packs, so I know manufacturing defects occur (with almost any product). So I know if a new, good jar could safely withstand 15 psi, I wouldn't feel comfortable with all jars like that. And filling up the yeast brink is likely to have my hands, and face, within inches of the jar. So I don't know. But I have blown a thing or two out of proportion.
Ok:
#1: anyone who drops a Futurama line is, in my book, A-OK Spot On! So, kudos!!
#2: all very solid points above. I don't have a yeast brink (although i want one- just logistics dont make it easy).
Zooksta
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about their manway gaskets? Have you tried one for the CF lid?
Last edited:
This is off topic from what you guys are discussing
But has anyone tried using a corny keg full of glycol in a small chest freezer, with an inline pump to cool their CF?
https://www.homedepot.com/p/PREMIUM-2-1-cu-ft-Chest-Freezer-in-White-PFR21500M/302569912
I realize this is thermodynamically less efficient than either a DIY glycol chiller or a larger vertical freezer as has been discussed ad nauseum. BUT this freezer is cheap and I bought my CF5 with cooling accessories included on the cheap. So I'm trying to be cost effective but practical.
The horizontal footprint of this setup would actually be as small as a glycol unit if I stacked them vertically... Certainly smaller than an upright freezer
Would I just be better off building the glycol unit since my CF came with the chilling accessories? Or better off selling the chilling accessories and using a freezer?
But has anyone tried using a corny keg full of glycol in a small chest freezer, with an inline pump to cool their CF?
https://www.homedepot.com/p/PREMIUM-2-1-cu-ft-Chest-Freezer-in-White-PFR21500M/302569912
I realize this is thermodynamically less efficient than either a DIY glycol chiller or a larger vertical freezer as has been discussed ad nauseum. BUT this freezer is cheap and I bought my CF5 with cooling accessories included on the cheap. So I'm trying to be cost effective but practical.
The horizontal footprint of this setup would actually be as small as a glycol unit if I stacked them vertically... Certainly smaller than an upright freezer
Would I just be better off building the glycol unit since my CF came with the chilling accessories? Or better off selling the chilling accessories and using a freezer?
Last edited:
On the NorCal yeast bring thread he also posted a video of the tests I think. The jars failed between 25-30 PSI and it was the actual metal of the lid that failed in every test.
I for one would be totally comfortable pressurizing a mason jar to 15 PSI. If I'm thinking about it right, the total pressure exerted on a vessel that small at interior surface area in square inches/15 psi
is FAR less than even 2 psi in a glass carboy.. The amount of pressure any cylindrical vessel can hold is proportional to the radius and wall thickness. So if the vessel gets bigger it needs to get proportionally thicker to hold the same amount of pressure.
A glass carboy is approximately (by eyeball) twice as thick as a mason jar, but has about 4 times the radius, so it can hold a LOT less pressure.
If I've totally bungled up this engineering I hope one of you smart guys will fix it for me.. Its been a long time since I took that class
I dunno... i was hoping this would work when i needed a chiller, but all posts i found made it seem unlikely. You are better off spending the cash on an ac unit, ice chest, and doing a diy chiller.
Imo of course.
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
You could probably use valve stem packing as a replacement CF lid gasket if you needed to. PFTE too. It likely wouldn't be cheap though. PTFE Valve Stem Packing - Equalseal.com
You'd be better off wrapping the CF lid gasket in PFTE thread tape though, if you're really concerned about the silicone gasket.
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
Safety aside (assuming it is safe) were you in the market for a yeast brink, would you rather:
1) Spend $160 on a sight glass yeast brink (Yeast Brink - 2), that you could use as a regular sight glass when not "brinking" (yes, I did that), or
2) Spend $110 on a mason jar yeast brink (2), and $70 on a sight glass (Tri Clover - Sight Glass - 2) ($180 total), and use them separately all the time?
I'd rather buy the 2" x 1.5" yeast brink for $47 and then buy two sight glasses from Amazon for $50 and have both
https://www.norcalbrewingsolutions.com/store/Tri-Clover-1.5-Inch-x-1.5-Inch-Yeast-Brink.html
DERNORD Tri Clamp in-Line Sight Glass with Flow Sanitary Straight Sight Glass SUS316 1.5 Inch Tri Clamp Clover Type (Flow Pipe OD 38MM) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075JBJQ1Y/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_uAiWEbW27VWK7
Edit: youd need the 1.5x1.5" yeast brink, sorry
specialkayme
Well-Known Member
Actually the 2"x2" yeast brink ($50). Of course you'd still need to get the appropriate clamps, end cap, and seals, but I get your point.
That would work. You will find the recovery isn't as fast as a dedicated glycol chiller, but it will work. FWIW, no need to dedicate a keg to this---any reservoir will work.
I did something like this along the way to buying my glycol chiller. I set up a reservoir in the freezer compartment of my larger ferm chamber, drilled a couple holes in the top of the unit and ran the hoses in that way. I had two Inkbirds controlling this, one to control the glycol chilling the fermenter, one controlling the refrigerator/freezer.
And it worked. The cost was minimal--maybe $50 or so.
Now, having said that, response was a little slow. It worked well enough to hold temps as low as 50 without any problems. But one thing was clear: I couldn't get the fermenter below about 38 degrees on a good day, and I wanted to crash it down to 30 or so.
Where a dedicated freezer would excel on this is with defrost; my fridge has a defrost cycle which, of course, tended to warm up my glycol solution. A dedicated freezer w/o defrost cycle would be better.
If I can find the thread where I detail all this, including pics, I'll edit it in.
*********
So why did I buy my Penguin? I thought that A) I would be able to get that fermenter down to 30 or 32, and B) I thought there was a good chance I'd expand, and I'd need a dedicated chiller for that.
*********
EDITED TO ADD: Running tubing through freezer for wort chilling
This shows what I did. I made a heat sink out of some scrap aluminum I had (riveted it together), then spliced some copper tubing into the "circuit," and even had a fan in there blowing over the heat sink and copper tubing to try to improve performance.
It helped somewhat, but in the end, I opted for the Penguin. Part of me wishes I had not--the setup I had DID work to manage ferm temps, and it did that quite well. It was just the crashing I couldn't do, and in the end, it wouldn't have been the end of the world if the best I could do was 38 degrees.
Know why? Because I can't get it below that temp with the penguin, unless the garage where I have all this is pretty cold (sub 50 degrees). I was on an odyssey to figure out how to insulate the fermenter to allow that crash temp, but nothing was particularly effective. I tried wrapping the fermenter with a moving blanket, tried using reflectix on everything (see pic below, my wife called it the "Tin Man"), even built a "closet" out of pegboard into which I directed the cold air from a window air conditioner. None of it worked to improve the low temperature I could achieve.
I have one more thing to try, and that's to use 2" foamboard to make a "ferm chamber" inside which the fermenter will....well, chill. If I can isolate the fermenter from ambient, I think that would work.
But all that is tangential to the issue of whether you can do this in a freezer. Answer: Yes. I've done it.
Last edited:
Thanks! I read your oddessy early on, and your point is well taken that I don't need to use a keg. I do have the same goals as you did, I want to be able to crash down to 32, so if the best I'll be able to do is get down to 50, that's not worth my time.
That said, a larger reservoir (equal to the size of my beer) should make a big difference in the ability to crash.
Out of curiosity what sized penguin did you buy?
Would a higher btu/hr dissipation rate improve the performance you think?
Glycol is about $30 a gallon... so factor that into your cost benefit equation. If you do 5 gallons of beer you will need upwards of 5 gallons glycol, right? Penguin holds about 1.5 gallons at a 30% ratio
Yes, it would--though I've found that insulating that fermenter against ambient temps is where this is going to be solved.
It is the 1/2 hp. But I really think the the size you get depends more on the number of fermenters you're trying to cool. Mine is supposed to be able to handle four fermenters, though I will never get to that point. I don't doubt the 1/3 hp would work well on one or two fermenters.
I have a Spike CF10, so I can't speak to any other brand. I am not sure what you mean by a "higher" btu/hr dissipation rate. You can only get so much fluid through the chilling coil, and what's going in is already (on my system) at 28 degrees. The issue is the absorption of heat from ambient that the chiller is fighting against.
I'd actually though about some way of wrapping additional coils around the outside of the fermenter through which I'd run chilling solution, to give it a boost. I couldn't figure out an elegant way to do that since the fermenter has a neoprene jacket on it.
CodeSection
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,655
- Reaction score
- 818
I searched for a round Manway gasket EPDM roughly 17" in diameter and was hesitant to buy any of the items shown since they gave sizes like 13" x 17", etc. Have you found any EPDM replacement for that size that might be able to fit on the CF10's 17" diameter? If you find any let me know!
So it's a heat balance equation, so it's a balance between the heat transfer between the beer and the glycol through the coils, the flow rate of the glycol, and the heat dissipation capability of the chiller
Can't you just boost the flow rate? Or are you already at the maximum flow rate that the heat transfer to the glycol through the coils can support?
And what about wetting the neoprene with a swamp cooler fan to add some evaporative cooling to it?
I was under the assumption that most folks ran 30% glycol to 70% water or so, which would be 1.5 gallons of glycol. Is that not what you all have done?
I think of you are trying to chill with just a freezer like you said above, wpuldnt pure glycol be faster/ bettter? I coukd be way wrong here
For my penguin i went 50/50 but i hear 30 glycol/79 distilled water is fine
Similar threads
