Page 1 of 1

Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:15 pm
by mumblecrunch
I bought a Chugger pump from Dave a while back with the intent of using it for whirlpooling and, eventually, transfers. This has been contingent on designing and building a new immersion chiller which is why I'm still not using the pump.

Seeing as how I've decided that I am more in need of fermentation temperature control than a new chiller, and my time for fun projects is severely limited, the wort chiller design and build is going on the back burner and a ferm chamber is taking precedence. I'd still like to start whirlpooling (and using that pump that I paid for), though, and I know the alternative to a whirlpool arm is a kettle port with a street elbow on the inside.

Has anyone else in the group done this? Any recommendations on height or position relative to existing bulkheads (thermometer and drain valve)? I have a 15gal pot from Everwood but I have yet to do a 10 gallon batch and I have no plans to start any time soon. So should I just plan to put it a few inches below the top of my usual batch? Lower? Higher (at the risk of causing hot-side aeration)? Anything necessary other than a street elbow on the inside and a ball valve on the outside?

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:18 pm
by Keith
I'll find it

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:25 pm
by Keith
FB_IMG_1447104204526.jpg
Left port is my setup. Cam lock to 3 piece ballvalve, weldless bulkhead kit with 90 deg street elbow.

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:01 pm
by LeafMan66_67
I've got the 19G pot ft of OBK. I pulled the thermometer from the factory top port and added a ball valve and street elbow. Works great and is just below the level of 20L batches.

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:46 pm
by mumblecrunch
I had worries that if I put it too low it wouldn't be able to move the wort effectively. But if the same pump can move a 20 (or is it 25?) gallon batch in Keith's cannibal cauldron, I obviously have nothing to worry about.

I have also been a little frustrated by the height of my thermometer port in my kettle, as it's usually just right to get a reading for my boil, but not always for my mash water. So I may follow Derek's lead and use the existing thermometer port for whirlpooling and use a newly punched hole a few inches lower for my thermometer.

Thanks gents!

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:54 pm
by Keith
I've moved 25 gallons so far without issue. During a few Co brews. Next Co brew I think I'm gonna push the limits and do 30 gallons.

Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:44 pm
by jeffsmith
I've got my 25 gallon pot setup similar to Keith's. No issues here either in 15-20 gallon batches.

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:23 pm
by GuingesRock
There's some pictures of my whirlpool in this thread: http://www.brewnosers.org/forums/viewto ... =25#p85745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think it really matters although maybe the bottom one shouldn't be too close to the bottom as there would be more resistance to water movement down there caused by friction against the bottom of the pot, and maybe not too close to the top as it might move the surface wort, creating turbulence and be less efficient at moving the body of the water. I wonder if the bottom one should be 1/4 the way up and the top about 1/4 the way down, but there has to be someone on here who actually knows what they are talking about.

It's a good question.

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:31 pm
by Keith
I placed mine in that location in order to do 10 gallon batches. Honestly I'd have no issues going lower, the trub cone that collects in the middle is massive.

Re: Whirlpool Port Height

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:57 am
by CorneliusAlphonse
i think flow rate is going to matter more than elevation for most things. but i'd say having it around the center elevation of your chiller would ensure the wort is moving past the coils most effectively.