SS Fermenting Unit...

[EGSHQ]

Would anyone care to comment on this design for a SS fermentation unit?

The top intake under the locking lid has an aeration head to aid in cooling and of course, to aerate the wort. Plus, the lid has a port to insert a SS funnel for adding yeast which is then sealed with an air lock.



Thank you...

 

[Bensiff]

An aeration head? to aid in cooling? If you have the ability to fabricate stainless, may as well go with TC fittings. I would find it easier to have a large diameter TC fitting welded to the top to add yeast so I didn't have to bother with sanitizing a funnel.

 

[EGSHQ]

An aeration head helps in cooling by exposing the wort to the air in thinner streams which also helps to aerate the wort prior to adding the yeast.
Having an inexpensive SS funnel would lessen the cost and be easier to clean/sanitize as well. TC fittings could be an option for those wanting to go that route. Also, does TC fittings have an air lock fitting/adapter?

 

[EGSHQ]

Other than the fittings selected, any other comments on the design?

 

[Bensiff]

So are you building this to be a sort of coolship for a homebrewer? Other than that very limited application, air cooling isn't done, it is slow and opens the doors wide for infection. As far as a TC fitting specific for an airlock, IDK, but tossing on a 1" TC ferrule would easily allow a bung and air lock to be installed and then sealed with a cap when not in use.

I personally wouldn't buy a conical that relied on one small hole at the top and a funnel to pitch the yeast and I imagine most other brewers wouldn't either as people who spring for something like a conical are pretty serious into the hobby and want the most user friendly pieces of equipment not something that cuts corners to save a little money here and there. I would take a look at what Brewer's Hardware has for a conical for ideas...TC fittings, large top port, quality racking arm design, large bore dump port...an overall design that strives to overcome some of the difficulties of other conicals on the market for homebrewers.

 

[EGSHQ]

"air cooling isn't done, it is slow and opens the doors wide for infection."
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but the aerator head is NOT the primary cooling component. A separate chiller is used in this closed system.
Slow? What is slow?
"Opens the door for infection" Again, I'm not sure what you meant by this, but one point of a closed system is to mitigate cross contamination.

"I personally wouldn't buy a conical that relied on one small hole at the top and a funnel to pitch the yeast and I imagine most other brewers wouldn't either as people who spring for something like a conical are pretty serious into the hobby and want the most user friendly pieces of equipment not something that cuts corners to save a little money here and there".

First, you say it is a small hole, but I never gave specs on any dimensions. You also made a comment about the dump port needing to be large... same reply.
Second, in my opening comments, I stated it has a locking lid, I.e. removeable.
Third, the point of this system is to make it user friendly as well as efficient. The funnel is an option and certainly not intended to "cut corners".

As far as checking out Brewer's Hardware, I buy the exact same components from my supplier in India as does TC and probably B'sH so quality is not an issue.

Nonetheless, great feedback!

 

[Bensiff]

Well, I'm a at a complete loss in understanding what an aerator head is, I have never heard the term in brewing. Could you explain it better?

You said the hole for the funnel is the same as the one for the airlock and standard airlock bungs are pretty small, under 2" in diameter so I'm going off that assumption. If it were me, I would want a large 8" or larger TC ferrule on top with a couple different TC caps, one solid so I can maintain a closed pressurized system and one with a small hole cutout for a standard airlock and bung or blowoff tube. This would make it so I can pitch the yeast without the aid of extra components, allow easy access if I wanted to reach in and top crop, do pressure transfers, or ferment under pressure should I want to experiment.

As far as the bottom port, I didn't comment on your design, I was pointing out what others have done on their designs that are good. It looks like your design has a 1.5" ball valve if I were to guess, but more importantly is that it appears to be a basic economy ball valve. IME unscrewing economy ball valves to clean the seal and ball area can be extremely difficult which is not good as they can get pretty nasty so they do need regular cleaning meaning a regular headache which is why I stopped using them years ago. A 3 piece ball valve is a little easier to deal with but there are still better options. It looks like it is welded on so that is good, but again, I would sooner have TC fittings welded on for ease of use and the avoidance of threaded fittings (again a pain to keep clean).

Finally, do you have a racking arm? I don't see one. But, this is just my opinion. I don't think one can succeed with an economy stainless conical because once one decides to spend that kind of money, you may as well spend a little more and get one that is fully loaded...until then plastic conicals are a nice economy way to get into owning a conical.

Who is TC?

 

[headwall]

If I were to buy a conical, I would buy it from brewers hardware. They got everything right with the design of their 15 gal conical in my opinion. So that may be a good reference for a solid conical design.

My critique of the image/description of the conical in the first post includes many of the same points already mentioned.

I don't understand what the aerator head is or what function it is supposed to serve. Perhaps you could be a bit more clear about that.

I want the ability to pitch yeast directly in to the conical after I have transferred and cooled/oxygenated my wort. I do not want to use a funnel. In my opinion, the use of a funnel to pitch yeast is not convenient and is a liability, if anything. There should be a large enough opening that is easy to open and close for this purpose.

I do not feel a single bottom outlet is sufficient. I would want a second port to facilitate transfers.

I'm not a huge fan of the bottom outlet design, although it is difficult to see the detail in that picture. As previously mentioned, the outlet size looks small and it appears to be a very abrupt right angle at the bottom. I would also prefer a tri clamp fitting to allow for the use of a sight glass and butterfly valve.

Just for fun, I'd like to see a thermowell and sample valve welded in.

You did not mention the volume of that conical but I would expect the design to be different for anything 10 gal or more. That would be a lot of cone otherwise.

TC fittings refers to tri clamp style fittings. As far as I know, it is not a company that manufactures or sells brewing equipment.

 

[EGSHQ]

Well, I'm at a complete loss in understanding what an aerator head is, I have never heard the term in brewing. Could you explain it better?

Okay, so neither of us teaches as a profession... right? Conveying ideas that are in my head to others is a task. Especially when I am trying to hear above all the other voices in my head...

Here is a simple prototype of an aerator head similar to ones that I have been using for other applications. The idea was to try and get the wort more oxygenated and it would have a small amount of cooling effect when the streams of wort were "sprayed" in the fermenting unit. All this while applying the premise of a closed system. It hangs vertically, horizontally as shown.



As you can see, its quite simple and used in many different applications.
The holes are all around the cylinder, not just on one side. On the pointed end as well. One for the Fermenting unit would be proportionally different.

The next one is a prototype I have been thinking of making for Sparging.

"You said the hole for the funnel is the same as the one for the airlock and standard airlock bungs..."

I better understand your point now. That paragraph has given a good deal to consider.

The same for the following paragraph. I was wanting to see if anyone would offer better ideas to the concept... here they are! Yes, threading is laborious and more difficult to clean/sanitize.

What would be your opinion of a butterfly valve such as the one pictured below?


Explain/illustrate your Racking Arm idea, please.

TC? TC Fittings...

Again, thanx for the feedback!

 

[KGB09]

Seems like there is only one port on the bottom(bottom dump). One of the reasons I have my conical is so i can dump the yeast and trub to harvest/get the beer off it. Probably going to be hard to do that with only one port. If I dump once with a ball valve then close, I'm not going to rack through the same valve 1-? Weeks later because of contamination issues and I'm still going to get a bunch of trub/yeast when I rack.

One more thing. I think most people that spent the money for a SS conical also spent the money for an aeration system. Whether it pure O2 or a tank pump, your aeration convenience idea is not going beat out the desire for higher O2 levels. IMO.

 

[EGSHQ]

"Seems like there is only one port on the bottom(bottom dump)"...

KGB09, Yes it has just one bottom port right now.
If I were to put another one in, how would you suggest positioning it; above or below the one in place, coming out of the bottom pointing down, in line with other port, offset?

Secondly, I think those unfamiliar with the aeration head underestimate it effectiveness.

 

[KGB09]

Well you have the bottom dump already, so I would add another above about half way up the cone in line with the other valve.

So I'm just throwing this out there, there are quite a few company's that sell homebrew size SS conical fermenters that you could easily learn way more about good design just by looking at them instead of having people try to word smith their way through it. Good luck though.

 

[KGB09]

Secondly, I think those unfamiliar with the aeration head underestimate it effectiveness.

So I guess I thought I had a pretty good understanding of how much O2 could be desolved in to a solution through "simple" aeration compared to a diffusion stone with forced air/pure O2. Is there something I've missed? I feel like I could trickle my wort into the fermenter from a foot up or so and accomplish the same thing. Might take a few minutes longer.

 

[Bensiff]

Here is a simple prototype of an aerator head similar to ones that I have been using for other applications. The idea was to try and get the wort more oxygenated and it would have a small amount of cooling effect when the streams of wort were "sprayed" in the fermenting unit. All this while applying the premise of a closed system. It hangs vertically, horizontally as shown.

I don't see this device being effective at cooling, splash aeration sure; but selling it as a cooling device seems a stretch. Cooling should be done before the aeration occurs so people will still be relying on immersion, counterflow, or plate chillers to cool the wort before it hits the conical. The problem with splash aeration is that it is limited to the available oxygen in the air so you are looking at around 8ppm max, which you can make beer with but it is really inadequate as the ideal range is around 10-12ppm and the only way you can get that saturation level is by using pure O2. So, while I appreciate that you thought of a way to effectively splash aerate, this goes back to where people are at in the hobby and I contend that folks who pay money for a stainless conical are pretty serious so things like proper oxygenation is very important to them so they would be looking for a port to run an oxygen stone into so they can inject gas. However, you might find application for your aerator head as a sparger like you mentioned.

What would be your opinion of a butterfly valve such as the one pictured below?

Butterfly valves are excellent, simple in design, easy to clean. They do have one major drawback which is they are pretty much all or nothing, you really can't throttle the flow like you can with a ball valve. So while Brewers Hardware uses them on the dump and racking arm valves, I don't know that is the best idea. I don't have practical experience with them in this application so take it for what it is worth. But, I would think using a butterfly valve as the dump valve would be good so you don't get clogs. However, when I draw off samples I like the control of a ball valve so I can slowly fill a graduated cylinder for a gravity test. Now here is another though that I never even mentioned. Have a port for a sampling valve, that way it wouldn't really matter if the racking arm was a ball or butterfly valve.

Explain/illustrate your Racking Arm idea, please.

A racking arm is a standard part on conicals, it is where the beer is drawn off from located above the dump port. Ideally it is a rotating design which requires some thought as you need to make the thing rotate without leaking. In essence it is a dip tube with a bend in it that you can rotate this lets you put the opening down during fermentation so it doesn't get yeast into it but lets you turn it up so you can rack the beer from the conical without sucking up the trub. You would be better off googling it though as it is something that is much easier to see a picture of than me attempting to explain it.

 

[EGSHQ]

I don't see this device being effective at cooling, splash aeration sure; but selling it as a cooling device seems a stretch.

I never promoted this as a cooling device, but rather aided in cooling. Actually, my words were "it would have a small amount of cooling effect when the streams of wort were "sprayed"... But I think the function of this $8 fixture is being misconstrued. It was a simple improvement on a fixture that had another intended purpose; an extension of the end point for the intake port. It's not the primary cooling or aeration modality. Its a fixture. Simple as that. If you'd like to have a little empirical evidence instead of anecdotal, go to your local plumbing supply store, look for a 6.5" x 2.5" stub-out bullet, drill some holes in it as pictured, connect to a warm/hot water source and see for yourself.

Butterfly valves are excellent, simple in design, easy to clean. They do have one major drawback which is they are pretty much all or nothing

I'm going to mess with the one I have and compare it to the ball valve in situations like you described. I didn't think of the "all or nothing" aspect. I'll get back with the results...

A racking arm is a standard part on conicals, it is where the beer is drawn off from located above the dump port. Ideally it is a rotating design...

I'll read more on the racking arm as I don't understand the need for a rotating fixture.

 

[Bobby_M]

You're looking for input but I would suggest that you take the tone of your comments down just a notch if you really want honest feedback. It's just coming off as a little argumentative. You're the one asking the questions, so take the answers for what they are worth.

No one that would invest in a conical fermenter would use only splash aeration. They would use an oxygen bottle with a diffusing stone either on a rod through the top of the fermenter or as an inline system just after the heat exchanger.

A rotating racking arm allows the user to find the sweet spot just above the trub line so that they can rack the clear beer off while leaving as little beer behind as possible.

Other features people want in a conical is the ability to pressurize it for transferring to kegs.

 

[EGSHQ]

"You're looking for input but I would suggest that you take the tone of your comments down just a notch if you really want honest feedback".

Would you please point out my sharp tone?

My scrutiny of the responses has given me some very insightful information such as the ones we've seen from Bensiff. If anyone has been offended, I would assume they would indicate it by stating such or simply ceasing to reply.

Nevertheless, if I offended you, my apologies.

 

[headwall]

Your comments are not offensive, but your tone is indeed argumentative.

I would suggest you try to take a look at a commercial fermenter first hand. Most home brew connicals try to mimic the design of what commercial brewers are using. Your design lacks several features that one would expect from a connical. It would be in your best interest to do some additional research to gain an understanding of why most connicals have very similar designs and how they are used, from start to finish. It sounds like you dont have a complete grasp of how connicals are most commonly used. Once you address those shortcomings I'm sure you'll be able to produce a competitive product if the price is right.

 

[Bobby_M]

Would you please point out my sharp tone?

I'd provide clarification, but then you'd probably just put up the southpark beating a dead horse picture.

 

[EGSHQ]

headwall wrote:

"It sounds like you dont have a complete grasp of how connicals are most commonly used".

Actually, I do have a good understanding of how the conical works. But, as is common in forums, few people ask questions for clarification and instead make assumptions as illustrated here. headwall could have started by asking "how long have you been into home brewing?" or " what is your goal here?" or "what wrong with the conicals already out there?" Instead, it was suggested I go do my homework. Now, if it were YOU being told this, would you find that agreeable?

The reason I began this thread the way I did and put up a photo of an incomplete home brewing conical was to begin a dialogue about what features one felt would be improvements over the ones presently offered; think outside the box. Where do you think this thread would have gone if I would have put up a conical EXACTLY like all the others and asked what you thought? Nowhere. It would have probably ended up with comments extolling the virtues of XYZ Brand.

As stated earlier, I did receive some very interesting ideas from those that didn't fully understand the concept being presented; e.g., Bensiff & KGB09. I felt they sat back, thought about it and then offered insightful solutions. Case in point, another approach to the rotating racking arm. Thanks again, Bensiff.

 

[headwall]

That wasn't an assumption. It was an observation. It doesn't matter how long you've been brewing or what your goal is, the fact that you did not understand how a racking port should be used or why a single bottom outlet is not ideal suggests that you might be better served by observing some conicals in action rather than trying to reinvent the wheel via this forum. I would even argue that posting a picture of a refined conical from an established manufacturer would result in a better discussion as people could post ideas as to how to improve upon products that have been tested already.

If I were doing market research and asking for feedback on a product idea and I was told to do my homework, I would find that very agreeable actually. It would suggest that either I was not communicating clearly or that I did, in fact, need to go do some more research. You may very well have a brilliant design in mind, but I don't believe you have communicated that very well in this thread. And your antagonizing tone toward those who question your design choices does not encourage a continued dialog.

I would again encourage you to check out the conical designs from Brewers Hardware, Blichmann, Stout Tanks, and others. Not that you should copy any of them outright, but gain an understanding of why they made the design choices they did, and see if you might include features into your design that would offer similar functionality. Or, think of additional features, not yet offered in homebrew-scale conicals, that you can add to your design to give it a competitive edge. And if you have not done so already, try to observe a local commercial brewer in action so you can see the workflow involved with every brewing step associated with conical fermenters.

 

[EGSHQ]

"It doesn't matter how long you've been brewing or what your goal is, the fact that you did not understand how a racking port should be used or why a single bottom outlet is not ideal suggests that you might be better served by observing some conicals in action rather than trying to reinvent the wheel via this forum".

We thoroughly understand how each component works. It is felt that asking questions is a better way to find what people's preferences are instead of prompting them. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

"I would again encourage you to check out the conical designs from Brewers Hardware, Blichmann, Stout Tanks, and others".

Again, that has been done... extensively.

"And if you have not done so already, try to observe a local commercial brewer in action so you can see the workflow involved with every brewing step associated with conical fermenters".

Quite an interesting comment! We have done this with two small-scale and a few micro-breweries to observe the complete process. Oddly, the most frequent comment from them was that many experienced home brewers take the design of a commercial scale beer production system and attempt to miniaturize it instead of designing one for the intended use; a hobby. Another interesting discovery is how many began as home brewers and still are doing it! Nonetheless, I agree with your original premise that watching their process is a real eye-opener.

 

[headwall]

I would agree that most conical designs seem to be scaled down versions of commercial systems. It seems as though that is what the market is after. As someone who has worked in a commercial brewery, my own personal preference would be to use basically a scaled down version of a commercial design. The reason for this is I am used to working with those types of conicals and every port and fitting makes sense to me. So I am definitely biased towards designs that mimic commercial-scale fermenters because I have worked with them and they seem intuitive to me. Unfortunately, the only drawback I can think of is cost. I currently do not own a stainless conical, nor am I planning to acquire one any time soon, because of the cost. However, when I do buy one, I will choose one that mimics a commercial conical. Until I can afford one like that I will continue to ferment in carboys and kegs. Spending money on anything that had less functionality than a Stout/BH/etc. conical would be an unhappy compromise for me.

 

[EGSHQ]

When I was describing the idea of a "scaled down" version, I was actually referring to the whole brewing system.

As for cost, I am in 100% agreement with you... they are too expensive and I have yet to understand why.

 

[PeteNMA]

Because economics dictates that you charge a price that the market will bear?

 

[Bensiff]

Another thing that I have never seen as a selling point on a conical is dimensions. Perhaps at the home brew scale the hydrostatic pressure on the yeast simply doesn't matter but if I saw someone selling a conical and they stated that the width to depth ratio was say 1:1 for reasons xyz and the conical angle was x degrees for reasons xyz I would pay attention to that design. So long as there is solid bases for the dimensions and not some assumptive reasoning though because a commercial conical has a certain slope doesn't mean that will work for home brew for all I know a home brew conical may need a steeper slope due to less hydrostatic pressure and less trub. So there is something else to think about that can set you apart from the crowd.

 

[EGSHQ]

Back to the drawing board...

 

[Erbe]

Question? I have seen Beer Kegs used as fermenters, seems with some extra S.S and welding skills you could make a conical fermenter.
I am trying to start a Home Brewing Club here in Riverside Ca, and was thinking I might be able to make three of them for the price of one, started drawing up some prints to chat with the local metal shops to get ideal on costing.

 

[EGSHQ]

"Because economics dictates that you charge a price that the market will bear"?

Then why is the market so small?

 

[orangehero]

To me it doesn't seem that the price is that high for some of the homebrew conicals. The chinese made ones actually seem extremely inexpensive. If you have figured out the cost for materials, fittings, welding, machining, and other labor I would be interested to know.

These would be some of my ideal specs:
1.5" TC port for thermometer
1.5" TC port for racking arm
2" TC port for drain
1.5" TC port for blow-off/CO2/pressure release valve
Large TC access port
Butterfly valves
Pressurizable to 30+ psi
Optional glycol jacket

I also like the Brewer's Hardware racking arm design with o-rings

Definitely as few threaded fittings as possible on the cold side of the brewery.

The conicals from Glacier Tanks and Brewer's Hardware seem perfect to me. If you can make it for half the price then count me in.

 

[dieden187]

I would love to grab a brewhemoth... 22 gallons so you have enough headspace for a 1/2 barrel fermentation, simple, relatively cheap ($640). I would just want a TC fitting added for a thermowell.

 

[mjohnson]

If I were considering building a conical for sale to the homebrew market, I would also consider the internal dimensions of commonly available frost free upright freezers and fridges. Many homebrewers don't have a cellar that is magically the right temp all year.

I wouldn't purchase a conical that wouldn't fit in a fridge or freezer.

-mj

p.s. Your tone does come off argumentative whether you mean to or not. Evidence: "I never promoted this as a cooling device, but rather aided in cooling. Actually, my words were..." Starting off a sentence with "Actually" in this context makes you sound like a jerk. "Aided in cooling" is kind of promoting its cooling effect. It was your fault that they were confused. Your potential customers will likely be confused too. The proper response would likely be something like, "Thanks for the input - maybe I'll have to revise my wording about that feature."

 

[EGSHQ]

 

[mjohnson]

Would you please point out my sharp tone?

My scrutiny of the responses has given me some very insightful information such as the ones we've seen from Bensiff. If anyone has been offended, I would assume they would indicate it by stating such or simply ceasing to reply.

Nevertheless, if I offended you, my apologies.

Sorry, I thought you were asking.