Author Topic: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller  (Read 1614 times)

Offline geobrewer

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • GeoBrewer
Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« on: November 19, 2010, 08:53:27 AM »
Anyone ever use a stainless steel immersion chiller? I've seen a few advertized, but never seen any comments on them.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000FDVD5S/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0

My newbie thoughts are, they probably don't cool the wort as fast as copper, since SS has poorer heat conductivity. The only advantage might be less tarnish/easier to keep "shiny". But haven't read about major concerns about that from the more experienced brewers on here.

I'm not really in the market for one right now. I just thought I'd throw it out for discussion.

Offline Tim McManus

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
    • Haskell Brewing Company
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2010, 09:12:23 AM »
I would agree that it wouldn't be as efficient at transferring heat as copper, and that would be the biggest concern.  You want to chill wort as rapidly as possible to your pitching temperature.  Copper is the best metal to do this with.
Tim McManus
Haskell, NJ

Offline phillamb168

  • Brewmaster General
  • *******
  • Posts: 2335
  • Lardy, France
    • View Profile
    • My Job
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2010, 09:51:35 AM »
I use a SS version, but I also double-up on cooling and run wort through a counterflow chiller too. I haven't had problems and can get the wort down to pitching temp in no time.
I'm on twitter: phillamb168
----
morticaixavier for governing committee!

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4536
  • Milford, MI
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2010, 09:59:39 AM »
While the conductivity of the SS is not as good as copper, the limiting factors are the wort transfer coefficient and the water transferr coefficient, which are really low.  The SS is probably about 90% as effective.  The coefficient of SS is around 16, copper 400, and water/wort around 0.58, units of (Watt/meter-degree C).
Jeff Rankert
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild, AHA Member, BJCP Certified
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

Offline tom

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1110
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2010, 10:08:11 AM »
And if you ever want to go the HERMS route, the SS would be preferable.
Brew on

Offline geobrewer

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • GeoBrewer
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2010, 10:43:33 AM »
If the cooling capacity is not much different, and cost difference is negligable, then why aren't they more popular? My guess would be, copper is much easier to work with for the DIYer? Plus the "that's what we've always used" reasoning?

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11665
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2010, 10:48:03 AM »
And if you ever want to go the HERMS route, the SS would be preferable.

Why is that, Tom?
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline bluesman

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 8678
  • Delaware
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2010, 10:50:06 AM »
The main reason I use copper is for the performance factor but the other reason being as you have mentioned is "the do it yourself factor".  By that I mean I was able to purchase 50 ft of soft copper and make my own chiller using a corny keg and a few fittings.  It's alot easier to bend and wrap soft copper than SS. So there's two good reasons to go with copper over SS.   :)

Cheers,

Ron Price
Ron Price

Offline hopfenundmalz

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 4536
  • Milford, MI
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2010, 11:07:44 AM »
Copper is easy to work, available, and was not that expensive for 50 ft of 1/2 inch at the big box.
Don't know where I would get a roll of SS.  Maybe McMaster-Carr.  I would not try and wrap that around a corny keg to form it.

SS is more durable and can stand up to harsher chimicals if you wanted to do agressive cleaning.  That being said, my copper chiller will last longer than I will. 
Jeff Rankert
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild, AHA Member, BJCP Certified
Home-brewing, not just a hobby, it is a lifestyle!

Offline euge

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 7225
  • Estilo Casero
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2010, 11:22:06 AM »
My concern is immersion chillers can get a bit of rough treatment from time to time. If the stainless gets scratched- say from sitting on concrete then that'll open the way for rust, which might not be apparent at first.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard P. Feynman

Offline majorvices

  • Global Moderator
  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *****
  • Posts: 6308
  • Polka. If its too loud you're too young.
    • View Profile
    • Yellowhammer Brewing Company
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2010, 12:25:20 PM »
And if you ever want to go the HERMS route, the SS would be preferable.

Why is that, Tom?

I'll second that. I can't figure out for the life of me why it would make a better HERMS.

One of the nice things about copper in the BK is that it adds trace elements of zinc, which is a very good yeast nutrient.
Keith Y.
Self appointed "All Grain" section pruner

Offline tubercle

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1639
  • Sweet Caroline
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2010, 04:24:39 PM »
Tubercle's 0.02

 "Shiny" factor is on the bottom of my list.
Performance and bang for the buck is on top.
Sweet Caroline where the Sun rises over the deep blue sea and sets somewhere beyond Tennessee

Offline narcout

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Los Angeles, CA
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2010, 04:28:09 PM »
And if you ever want to go the HERMS route, the SS would be preferable.

Why is that, Tom?

I'll second that. I can't figure out for the life of me why it would make a better HERMS.

Could internal (therefore not easily detectable) verdigris be a concern?

Offline tom

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1110
  • Denver, CO
    • View Profile
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2010, 09:37:41 AM »
I consider stainless to be stronger and more corrosion-resistant than copper.

My copper coils all are bent out of shape and covered with oxidation.

For homemade stuff copper is easier for me to do. I can bend it and solder it.
But overall I consider stainless a superior material.
Brew on

Offline BrewArk

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Rick - Newark, California
    • View Profile
    • BrewArk
Re: Stainless Steel Immersion Chiller
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2010, 09:49:25 AM »
Could internal (therefore not easily detectable) verdigris be a concern?

Doesn't the beer stay on the exterior of the coil? Unless you are returning the coolant to something you are consuming I wouldn't see this as a problem.
Beer...Now there's a temporary solution!

Na Zdraví