New Packing

Post your builds here.

Moderator: Site Moderator

C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

manu de hanoi wrote:Hi
about run #1 : Above safe power setting used in run #3, flooding is dependent on reflux. Because at the beginning of the run #1, you were refluxing much less than at the end, it did not flood initially but then at the end it did.
Yes I see that I can not increase heat too much and increase reflux or flooding will occur. I decreased heat, cut product take-off, and put in full reflux, pulled container equalized column after the column flooded. I turned the heat up prior to the flooding, I should have just left the heat alone.

manu de hanoi wrote:HiIt means that *if* you want to speed it up at the cost of tweaking, you can run with more heating power than in run #3 initially only and at the condition that each time you increase the reflux, you decrease the power accordingly (you'll have to experiment to get a feel for it ) until you reach the safe power you used in #3.
Yes I understand that if I increase reflux I need to decrease the heat.
If I increase heat I need to decrease reflux, thus possibly increasing out put depending on where I am in the run
I was trying to increase the heat only and figured the the reflux and product take off would increase proportionately which it does to some degree but it also increases the vapor speed causing flooding, if tweaking... I need to decrease the reflux if increasing the heat, but need to find that balance so product is 95+%
I am happy with the results (well after I check my cuts), but would like to get the product off at 1.5 LITERS AN HOUR, (20 minutes a pint)
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

C2H5O5 wrote: I am happy with the results (well after I check my cuts), but would like to get the product off at 1.5 LITERS AN HOUR, (20 minutes a pint)
Apparently that should be possible given the 10 first pints of run #1 were below 10min each
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

manu de hanoi wrote:
C2H5O5 wrote: I am happy with the results (well after I check my cuts), but would like to get the product off at 1.5 LITERS AN HOUR, (20 minutes a pint)
Apparently that should be possible given the 10 first pints of run #1 were below 10min each
I don't know... :cry: the ABV was all over the place and I couldn't even make cuts :crazy: , I'm guessing all the product was smeared :oops: .This week when I go to make my cuts I will know for sure.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
User avatar
skow69
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:03 am
Location: Cascadia

Re: New Packing

Post by skow69 »

Manu, will you share your theory with us? Why did you make your SPP so much smaller than what we are used to?
Distilling at 110f and 75 torr.
I'm not an absinthe snob, I'm The Absinthe Nazi. "NO ABSINTHE FOR YOU!"
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

skow69 wrote:Manu, will you share your theory with us? Why did you make your SPP so much smaller than what we are used to?
The theory behind making smaller SPP ? smaller SPP=>More surface area => more separation. That's the rationale laid out in the compleat distiller if I recall.
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: New Packing

Post by thecroweater »

manu de hanoi wrote:
skow69 wrote:Manu, will you share your theory with us? Why did you make your SPP so much smaller than what we are used to?
The theory behind making smaller SPP ? smaller SPP=>More surface area => more separation. That's the rationale laid out in the compleat distiller if I recall.
Yeah and if its to small it will choke as has happened, I would highly doubt there is a vapour speed slow enough to make this size in a 3" column work without even taking into account to would be compressing under its own weight
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

thecroweater wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:
skow69 wrote:Manu, will you share your theory with us? Why did you make your SPP so much smaller than what we are used to?
The theory behind making smaller SPP ? smaller SPP=>More surface area => more separation. That's the rationale laid out in the compleat distiller if I recall.
Yeah and if its to small it will choke as has happened, I would highly doubt there is a vapour speed slow enough to make this size in a 3" column work without even taking into account to would be compressing under its own weight
You are implying that vapour speed in a 3" is faster than in a 2". You are mistaken.
As far as weight is concerned a 3" column is usually only 1.5 to 2x the height of a 2" and the SPP is made of hardened stainless, so yes it stands its own weight under these conditions.
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: New Packing

Post by thecroweater »

I was not inferring the vapor speed is faster as for the same energy obviously it will be slower, the point being that I doubt it could run slow enough with this size and retain an efficient reflux. That is to say there is not enough void and it would flood.
By compacting I didn't necessarily mean it would crush so much as compact tightly together causing a reduction of what little void would otherwise be available. This is what one could reasonably assume has happened in this guys case. To my understanding more void would eliminate or at least allow the user to navigate these issues :thumbup:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
DAD300
Master of Distillation
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:46 am
Location: Southern U.S.

Re: New Packing

Post by DAD300 »

If the size of the SPP stays the same, while the column dia gets larger, more power is needed to keep the vapor speed at optimum.

In fact if the same power were maintained, as the column dia grows, the power becomes insufficient, reflux will just drop all the way through the column and out the bottom. I have had this happen.

With a 4" column over a keg, 5,000watts, I could not generate sufficient heat or vapor speed. It got into a cycle of reflux building until it overcame the vapor speed and dumped into the boiler, then build until another dump. All the while it was making 90%+ but never settling in. I assume the liquid reflux was channeling around the vapor.

I made this better by reducing the bottom of the 4" column to 2" and shortening the column. This helped keep the vapor speed up. But in the end only more power solved it.

Side note...I believe that if C2 reduced his reflux or increased his take off, he could get a higher takeoff and still at azeo. But I don't think his still allows this.
CCVM http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... d#p7104768" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
Ethyl Carbamate Docs viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55219&p=7309262&hil ... e#p7309262
DSP-AR-20005
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

thecroweater wrote:I was not inferring the vapor speed is faster as for the same energy obviously it will be slower, the point being that I doubt it could run slow enough with this size and retain an efficient reflux. That is to say there is not enough void and it would flood.
The heating power is not the same for a 3" as for a 2". My SPP is rated 1900W for a 2" and 4000W for a 3". That gives about the same vapour speed.
thecroweater wrote: By compacting I didn't necessarily mean it would crush so much as compact tightly together causing a reduction of what little void would otherwise be available. This is what one could reasonably assume has happened in this guys case. To my understanding more void would eliminate or at least allow the user to navigate these issues :thumbup:
You probably didnt read the whole thread, your issue was addressed, but most likely the issue was too much power. It works now.
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: New Packing

Post by thecroweater »

Pretty sure I read it all , ABV all over the place, sounds to me there is still some flooding / channelling going on and the problems are yet to be sorted. Let's see when this guy does his cuts but a fluctuating ABV would suggest some major entrainment is likely. He will almost surely not get consecutive cuts as can happen with an inconstistant run and its not all that unlikely ( judging from his description) that the majority of the run smeared. I think its a bit premature to call the problem sorted and announce that size packing is ok for larger diameter columns.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

thecroweater wrote:Pretty sure I read it all , ABV all over the place, sounds to me there is still some flooding / channelling going on and the problems are yet to be sorted. Let's see when this guy does his cuts but a fluctuating ABV would suggest some major entrainment is likely. He will almost surely not get consecutive cuts as can happen with an inconstistant run and its not all that unlikely ( judging from his description) that the majority of the run smeared. I think its a bit premature to call the problem sorted and announce that size packing is ok for larger diameter columns.
These issues were on run number 1 not run number 3
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

Just wanted to update this. Here are my ABV Readings on my last two runs, I haven't finished with all of the readings but it does tell a story as is.
I tried to measure this as accurately as possible with temp correction and reading below the meniscus, that's why I am surprised at the percentages. I have always been able to reach 95+ no problem but at a much slower speed and more fiddling.
I hope I didn't mix up the order of my runs :shock:
Stuff marked feints will be run again next year.


I gotta say that its really an awesome feeling when you see that Alcoholometer sink to the bottom :clap:

25% low wines @ approx.9 gallons


set temp very low after initial heat up ran in full reflux 30 minutes, took off fores
After fores, did not touch the reflux, water or heat input the entire run.
  • #1 - Feints - 11:20 – 11:50 10oz 172F - (30 Minutes) fores 3-5 drips a second
  • #2 - Feints 11:50 – 12:22 Pint 172F- (32 Minutes) increased product takeoff, drips per second like a steady dribble, not quite a broken stream
  • #3 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) 12:22 – 12:51 Pint 172F- (29 Minutes)
  • #4 - 98 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 12:51 – 1:19 Pint 172F- (28 Minutes)
  • #5 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 1:19 – 1:52 Pint 172F- (33 Minutes)
  • #6 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 1:52 – 2:21 Pint 172F- (29 Minutes)
  • #7 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 2:21 – 2:52 Pint 172F- (31 Minutes)
  • #8 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 2:52 – 3:22 Pint 172F- (30 Minutes)
  • #9 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 3:22 – 3:55 Pint 172F- (33 Minutes)
  • #10 - (Unknown) - 3:55 – 4:30 Pint 172F- (35 Minutes)
  • #11 - 97 (T. C. 95. 4℅) - 4:30 – 5:04 Pint 172F- (34 Minutes) barely any reflux
  • #12. (Unknown) - 5:04 – 5:42 Pint 172F- (38 Minutes) 0 reflux
  • #13. (Unknown) - 5:42 – 6:33 Pint 172F- (49 Minutes) 0 reflux
  • #14. (Unknown) - 6:33 – 6:53 8 oz 172F- (20 Minutes) still almost stopped completely at this point
Jars 11-14 were dumped into feints


25% low wines @ approx. 9 gallons
  • #1 - Feints - 11:35 – 11:51 - 10oz 172F- (16 Minutes) Distillate 3 – 4 drips a second
  • #2 - Feints - 11:51 – 12:18 Pint 172F- (16 Minutes)
  • #3 - Feints - 12:18 – 12:45 Pint 172F- (27 Minutes)
  • #4 - 98 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 12:45 – 1:15 Pint 172F- (30 Minutes)
  • #5 - 98 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 1:15 – 1:40 Pint 172F- (25 Minutes)
  • #6 - 98.5 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 1:40 – 2:09 Pint 172F- (29 Minutes)
  • #7 -98 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 2:09 – 2:36 Pint 172F- (27 Minutes)
  • #8 - 98 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 2:36 – 3:03 Pint 172F- (27 Minutes)
  • #9 - (Unknown at this time) - 3:03 – 3:28 Pint 172F- (25 Minutes)
  • #10- (Unknown at this time) - 3:28 – 4:01 Pint 172F- (33 Minutes)
  • #11 - 98 (T. C. 96.5℅) - 4:01 – 4:31 Pint 172F- (30 Minutes)
  • #12- (Unknown at this time) - 4:31 – 4:58 Pint 172F- (27 Minutes)
  • #13- (Unknown at this time) - 4:58 – 5:22 Pint 172F- (24 Minutes) 180F Flooded, because I played with the heat. I then cut product take-off, put in full reflux, pulled the container and equalized the column.
  • #14 - Feints - 5:22 – 5:46 Pint 172F- (24 Minutes)
  • #15 - Feints (NO RECORD)

I would wager I could probably do a pint every 25 minutes if I fiddled a little more but, I am happy with these results and running the still now is almost like autopilot unless you want to get into the tails and I don't bother.
This does has me thinking that slightly larger packing, MAY GIVE YOU MORE SPEED.
As I said, I am happy with my results and since I do a big run once a year, this is adequate for my needs.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

if you want to save time you should try to run a single distill from wash to 95% directly without stripping.
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

manu de hanoi wrote:if you want to save time you should try to run a single distill from wash to 95% directly without stripping.
That sounds like a plan, but would the final product be as clean as a reflux run from low wines?
I am in the process of building a pot still for my next run.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: New Packing

Post by thecroweater »

C2H5O5 wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:if you want to save time you should try to run a single distill from wash to 95% directly without stripping.
That sounds like a plan, but would the final product be as clean as a reflux run from low wines?
I am in the process of building a pot still for my next run.
Certainly your run time will be slower for the same ABV but stripping takes time too so probably no real energy save. Will it be cleaner? I should think so but side by side comparisons would reveal the differences between low wines and wash runs :wink:
Last edited by thecroweater on Thu Oct 13, 2016 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Stupid auto correct
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

C2H5O5 wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:if you want to save time you should try to run a single distill from wash to 95% directly without stripping.
That sounds like a plan, but would the final product be as clean as a reflux run from low wines?
I am in the process of building a pot still for my next run.
no, the double run with a given packing is cleaner than the single run. But it very well may be clean *enough* with a single run of SPP.
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

I just wanted to update this thread, I had a hell of a time running this season, It was much harder to drive the still this year. The column kept flooding I could barely get any heat into it without flooding.
Much more finicky than last year. It got to the point where I decided if I couldn't solve the problem, I was gonna scrap everything... it just wasn't worth the trouble.
My low wines were at 40%, not sure what they were last year, maybe 30-35%? Maybe that made a difference?

Anyhow, I removed the SPP packing and went back to the copper mesh... much easier to control now. I ran all day yesterday with one flooding issue but that was my fault for trying to push the still a little bit harder.

I know there has been some debating on the size of the SSP being too small causing the issue and it being argued that it should work.
Yes... I did get it too work but with too much effort, maybe if I had an electric setup, I could control better? Who Knows.

I'm still undecided if I should get rid of it or try again some day? But I think the only way I would try SSP again is if it were spec'd out like suggested in other threads here on HDF

Maybe it works well for the experienced folks but I'm still a bit green and it isn't worth it for me.

I just wanted to update this thread with my experience and I am not looking for folks to debate or offer up suggestions.. I don't want to be a troublemaker :D

I'll just stick to copper mesh.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
User avatar
papapro
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:56 am
Location: Ontario

Re: New Packing

Post by papapro »

C2H5O5 wrote:I just wanted to update this thread, I had a hell of a time running this season, It was much harder to drive the still this year. The column kept flooding I could barely get any heat into it without flooding.
Much more finicky than last year. It got to the point where I decided if I couldn't solve the problem, I was gonna scrap everything... it just wasn't worth the trouble.
My low wines were at 40%, not sure what they were last year, maybe 30-35%? Maybe that made a difference?

Anyhow, I removed the SPP packing and went back to the copper mesh... much easier to control now. I ran all day yesterday with one flooding issue but that was my fault for trying to push the still a little bit harder.

I know there has been some debating on the size of the SSP being too small causing the issue and it being argued that it should work.
Yes... I did get it too work but with too much effort, maybe if I had an electric setup, I could control better? Who Knows.

I'm still undecided if I should get rid of it or try again some day? But I think the only way I would try SSP again is if it were spec'd out like suggested in other threads here on HDF

Maybe it works well for the experienced folks but I'm still a bit green and it isn't worth it for me.

I just wanted to update this thread with my experience and I am not looking for folks to debate or offer up suggestions.. I don't want to be a troublemaker :D

I'll just stick to copper mesh.
What setup you have I run 2" and 24" tall electric controll and works perfect I can get 96ABV with no problem.you mentioned if you run electric could be different.
My set up is 16 l boiler with no heating element in for heat I use induction hot plate by NuWave it is excellent
controlls heat within 10 W steady for small setup is perfect.
For 2" for me is the best at 1000- 1200W but I prefair lower.
If you need some help with setting it up just ask.

PapaPro
Yes I am a Novice with 40+ years of doing this hobby
distilling is like sex the slower the better and everyone is happy
fermenting is opposit to sex the faster the better
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

C2H5O5 wrote:It was much harder to drive the still this year. The column kept flooding I could barely get any heat into it without flooding.
Hi
your SPP hasnt changed since last year.
1- did you see some goo in the SPP when you removed it ?
2-how much clearance did you have between the top of liquid and the bottom of the column ?
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

papapro wrote:
C2H5O5 wrote:I just wanted to update this thread, I had a hell of a time running this season, It was much harder to drive the still this year. The column kept flooding I could barely get any heat into it without flooding.
Much more finicky than last year. It got to the point where I decided if I couldn't solve the problem, I was gonna scrap everything... it just wasn't worth the trouble.
My low wines were at 40%, not sure what they were last year, maybe 30-35%? Maybe that made a difference?

Anyhow, I removed the SPP packing and went back to the copper mesh... much easier to control now. I ran all day yesterday with one flooding issue but that was my fault for trying to push the still a little bit harder.

I know there has been some debating on the size of the SSP being too small causing the issue and it being argued that it should work.
Yes... I did get it too work but with too much effort, maybe if I had an electric setup, I could control better? Who Knows.

I'm still undecided if I should get rid of it or try again some day? But I think the only way I would try SSP again is if it were spec'd out like suggested in other threads here on HDF

Maybe it works well for the experienced folks but I'm still a bit green and it isn't worth it for me.

I just wanted to update this thread with my experience and I am not looking for folks to debate or offer up suggestions.. I don't want to be a troublemaker :D

I'll just stick to copper mesh.
What setup you have I run 2" and 24" tall electric controll and works perfect I can get 96ABV with no problem.you mentioned if you run electric could be different.
My set up is 16 l boiler with no heating element in for heat I use induction hot plate by NuWave it is excellent
controlls heat within 10 W steady for small setup is perfect.
For 2" for me is the best at 1000- 1200W but I prefair lower.
If you need some help with setting it up just ask.

PapaPro
2" Nixon stone 39" packing.
No help needed I'm OK with the setup with copper mesh.

Also had a typo on my last post, my low wines were 25% last time, maybe the 35-40% was making the run too finicky?
Last edited by C2H5O5 on Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

manu de hanoi wrote:
C2H5O5 wrote:It was much harder to drive the still this year. The column kept flooding I could barely get any heat into it without flooding.
Hi
your SPP hasnt changed since last year.
1- did you see some goo in the SPP when you removed it ?
2-how much clearance did you have between the top of liquid and the bottom of the column ?
No the SPP is the same, only thing I did different this year was run my low wines at 35%-40% as opposed to last year at 25% If I were a betting man I would say that was my issue.

No the SPP was actually spotless, it looked completely unused.
Clearance was maybe 3" to the top inside of the keg and maybe another inch to the column, I'm guessing? It was approximately a 13.5 gallon charge.

I believe other more experienced folks would be OK with this packing, I just think I'm too green to run this packing. Way too much fiddling especially using a Kab 6 burner.


I ran a few more quarts last night and had one flooding issue with the copper mesh, but it was a spike in the heat right before the propane tank emptied out, weirdest thing.


I know for a fact that I do put more heat through it with the copper mesh as opposed to the SPP.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
StillerBoy
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:27 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: New Packing

Post by StillerBoy »

C2H5O5 wrote:My low wines were at 40%, not sure what they were last year, maybe 30-35%? Maybe that made a difference?
Your issue of difficult in controlling the operation maybe from your low wine being at 40%, vera your post of the previous year being at 25%..

I know from experience that a run of low wine at 40- 45% will be much more finicky in controlling vera a run at 30%, in part because the vapours are denser, (that is my take on it).. so I run at 35%, and my runs are like in automation, very stable, no matter what packaging used, which is lava rock in 3/8 -7/16" size seem best for 2" column..

Mars
" I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent. Curiosity, Obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my knowledge and understanding "

– Albert Einstein
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

StillerBoy wrote:
C2H5O5 wrote:My low wines were at 40%, not sure what they were last year, maybe 30-35%? Maybe that made a difference?
Your issue of difficult in controlling the operation maybe from your low wine being at 40%, vera your post of the previous year being at 25%..

I know from experience that a run of low wine at 40- 45% will be much more finicky in controlling vera a run at 30%, in part because the vapours are denser, (that is my take on it).. so I run at 35%, and my runs are like in automation, very stable, no matter what packaging used, which is lava rock in 3/8 -7/16" size seem best for 2" column..

Mars
That was my guess, that the low wines were too high.
What I don't understand is, if I have a 13.5 gallon charge of low wines and run off 1.5 gallons of 90+(haven't checked ABV yet), wouldn't the low wines that are now lower in ABV (28-30 ABV?) be less finicky to run the next day?

Note; I ran this in two days.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
StillerBoy
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:27 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: New Packing

Post by StillerBoy »

C2H5O5 wrote:What I don't understand is, if I have a 13.5 gallon charge of low wines and run off 1.5 gallons of 90+(haven't checked ABV yet), wouldn't the low wines that are now lower in ABV (28-30 ABV?) be less finicky to run the next day?
Not sure on how that would effect the next run, since I have never done a spirit run split in two.. my spirit runs are of 7 gal low wine at 35% in a boiler of 8 gal, run in 5.5 hrs, 6 hrs start to finish using 13 -14 amp of power or 2600 to 3000 watts..

As for a setup being finicky, my experience indicate that to reduce the finickness in the operation, is to find the right water flow in the condenser, in combination with the heat input and output take-off.. too much heat input is usually the issue.. once you find the right combination, record it, and stay with it..

Mars
" I know quite certainly that I myself have no special talent. Curiosity, Obsession and dogged endurance, combined with self-criticism, have brought me to my knowledge and understanding "

– Albert Einstein
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

StillerBoy wrote:
C2H5O5 wrote:What I don't understand is, if I have a 13.5 gallon charge of low wines and run off 1.5 gallons of 90+(haven't checked ABV yet), wouldn't the low wines that are now lower in ABV (28-30 ABV?) be less finicky to run the next day?
Not sure on how that would effect the next run, since I have never done a spirit run split in two.. my spirit runs are of 7 gal low wine at 35% in a boiler of 8 gal, run in 5.5 hrs, 6 hrs start to finish using 13 -14 amp of power or 2600 to 3000 watts..

As for a setup being finicky, my experience indicate that to reduce the finickness in the operation, is to find the right water flow in the condenser, in combination with the heat input and output take-off.. too much heat input is usually the issue.. once you find the right combination, record it, and stay with it..

Mars
I understand the the water output should be hot but not, "too hot to touch", to prevent "Shock Cooling" I believe they call it.

Although my adjustments on the KAB 6 can be adjusted minutely, it's still too much of a balancing act to get a consistent (no flooding) run.
I have learned to listen to my column, If I am on top of it , I can hear it start to flood in the column before I even see it in the sight glass and can get a jump on it.

As far as the low wines reducing in ABV during the run, doesn't it stand to reason that if there's an issue running low wines too high of an ABV and flooding is caused, that as the ABV decreases throughout the run that flooding would be less of an issue? whether you ran it in one run or split the runs?

I have 2 runs that I will be checking the ABV on, one with the SPP and one with Copper mesh. If they are close in ABV I will definitely not go back to the SPP.

I do know that I will be using more propane by at least 20%, but that is an acceptable loss/cost to be able to drive my still with less frustration.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
zapata
Distiller
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: New Packing

Post by zapata »

I dont think the low wines were the problem. If anything higher abv low wines are less trouble for me. I think its gas. You just cant set it precisely, adjust it precisely, or repeat a setting between runs.

Go electric, you'll love it on either packing so its not like throwing good money after bad. But I bet when you feed the spp with an apprioriate, known and repeatable amount of power that it will truly shine. An electric upgrade is also the only still upgrade that will ever pay for itself, though tbh it will take a while to offset $200ish in propane. But the ease, safety, convenience and improved performance is worth it anyway.
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

zapata wrote:I dont think the low wines were the problem. If anything higher abv low wines are less trouble for me. I think its gas. You just cant set it precisely, adjust it precisely, or repeat a setting between runs.

Go electric, you'll love it on either packing so its not like throwing good money after bad. But I bet when you feed the spp with an apprioriate, known and repeatable amount of power that it will truly shine. An electric upgrade is also the only still upgrade that will ever pay for itself, though tbh it will take a while to offset $200ish in propane. But the ease, safety, convenience and improved performance is worth it anyway.

Any tips on how to run on electric without welding?
It would also have to be on a 15 amp circuit and my boilers are sanke kegs 15gallons.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
User avatar
still_stirrin
Master of Distillation
Posts: 10337
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:01 am
Location: where the buffalo roam, and the deer & antelope play

Re: New Packing

Post by still_stirrin »

C2H5O5 wrote:Any tips on how to run on electric without welding?
I don't know what you mean by this question...do you mean, "to weld in the 2" ferrule for an electric element", or "running with enough electric power to weld"...
C2H5O5 wrote:It would also have to be on a 15 amp circuit and my boilers are sanke kegs 15gallons.
Are you limited to 120VAC (by the 15 amp circuit)? Can you get two separate 15 amp circuits at the same time?

If so, use two 5.5kW elements, each connected to a separate circuit. They'll draw 1375 watts (11.5 amps) per circuit which will be safe for each independent breaker.

Plus...and this is a big one...using the ULWD elements on 120VAC further reduces your watt density, that is - you have less power distributed over a larger element surface area. It reduces the likelihood of scorching even at "full power" (1375W for each element).

The disadvantage is that you'll need 2 elements and 2 attachment ferrules. It requires more 10 gage wire and connectors. And you'll need, at least, one controller. The 2nd element could be simply switched. This is how I power my boiler (also a Sanke 1/2 barrel), only I have two 4.5kW LWD elements, both of which I have on a controller.
ss

Two 1375W elements would bring your 12 gallon wash to boil in roughly 45-60 minutes. That'll give you time to get things ready for the run.
My LM/VM & Potstill: My build thread
My Cadco hotplate modification thread: Hotplate Build
My stock pot gin still: stock pot potstill
My 5-grain Bourbon recipe: Special K
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

My apologies for such a vague question.
I wanted to know what folks were doing for "No Weld" boilers.
I found more than enough info on electric here on HD if I plan on going that route, but to be honest I think that I am overthinking this a bit.
Checking ABV on my "SPP" run and my "Copper mesh" run the two were very close, almost identical.
20171026132 (Custom).jpg

However the propane usage is up a good bit switching back to the Copper Mesh. I can live with this as I only do this every fall and the RIDE is so much more relaxing.
I will start another thread if I plan on going the electric route, I don't want to clutter up the topic of this thread.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
Post Reply