Keg still tower design questions

[fafrd]

I am an experienced winemaker thinking of getting into fortified wine (for which I need some spirits). I'm thinking of using a 15gal keg I have to make a Keg Tower still like this: http://www.instructables.com/id/Buildin ... ll-design/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

I have 10s of gallons of unexceptional wine and wine past its prime so that is what I will be distilling. High alcohol % is not a priority and I would like as much of the grape/wine flavor/characteristic to make it through to the spirits as is easy to achieve.

I have some design questions on the basic copper tower I'm planning on building and would appreciate any guidance that can be offered by the experienced members of this forum:

Condenser
I saw a few posts scattered around about pre-canned condensors not being long enough and having to add an extension.

For flavored distillations where high alcohol levels are not a priority, is there any advantage to having a longer condenser?

With this simple pot-still tower design, what is the benefit of a longer condensor?

4' or even 10' will be about as easy for me as 2', so is there any reason I might want or might want to avoid making a longer condenser?

Cap / narrowing
I've seen three typical designs:
-2" to 1/2" reducer before an elbow: http://www.instructables.com/id/Buildin ... ll-design/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
-2" elbow before a 2" to 1/2" reducer: https://milehidistilling.com/product/2- ... tower-kit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
-2" to 1/2" (or 3/4") reducing T with the open top plugged with a cork (which may include a thermometer: https://milehidistilling.com/product/po ... nch-tower/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Firstly, is there and advantage to making a 2" turn before constricting to 1/2"?

Secondly, is there any advantage to extending up past the 'turn' / exit hole and having an open top (plugged with a stopper)?

As I'm learning more (here on the board), my simple understanding of this design is that whatever condenses within the vertical tower will reflux back down to the pot while once vapor 'makes the turn' it will end up condensig and flowing into output. I'm trying to understand what is driving these various designs and what the pros and cons are.

Thermometer
I appreciate your earlier response which clarifies that a thermometer is not required. The cost and complexity of including a thermowell is pretty minor, so I may want to include one even if it ends up not being required for the type of distilling I am interested in. So some questions on thermometer placement:

Where is the best location for a temperature sensor?

Is the thermometer more useful measuring the temperature near the top of the column (within the column where there is reflux) or within the bend where the passing vapors will condense into the output)?

Is there any value to measuring the temperature of the liquid in the pot?

Counterflow jacket
I've built counterflow chillers for beermaking using stainless or copper tubing within a rubber or plastic/PEX jacket, so I am familar with the design of the condenser.

My sense is that the use of a copper jacket is purely for show since the coolant with the jacket never comes into contact with product, but I'd appreciate to understand if there is something I may be missing.

I'm planning to build my jacket with a single soldered 3/4" (or 1") NPT adapter near the hot end of the condenser, followed by a threaded plastic T with a hose adapter port for coolant out port, a 3/4" (or 1" if there is any advantage to going bigger) plastic tube down near the outout end of the condenser, into another threaded plastic T with a hose adapter port for coolant in port, followed by a 3/4" (or 1") compression adapter to seal against the inner tube. All of this 'plastic' will be rated to 250F.

Plastic won't look as purdy as shiny copper, but it will be alot cheaper and since it is all threaded, it will be much easier to assemble and can be dissassenbled at any time.

Is there any reason that I would not want to do this (other than missing out on the ooohs and aaahs of any onlookers)?

Thanks all for any answers to these questions.

[OtisT]

Condenser
I saw a few posts scattered around about pre-canned condensors not being long enough and having to add an extension.

For flavored distillations where high alcohol levels are not a priority, is there any advantage to having a longer condenser?

With this simple pot-still tower design, what is the benefit of a longer condensor?

4' or even 10' will be about as easy for me as 2', so is there any reason I might want or might want to avoid making a longer condenser?

The "size" of the your condenser you need is a factor of how much power you have. A more powerful boiler means you need a more powerful condenser, for the most part. If you use a liebig then making it longer is the simplest way to make it more powerful. Having a larger diameter vapor path also improves efficiency by slowing the vapor down. There are a few vapor speed calculators in the calcs section of the HD Parent site that show the effect of Power and Column Diameter on Vapor Speed.

It has been a while since I have run a 1/2" vapor path liebig to tell you how much power a specific length will handle. I can say that my 3/4" vapor path liebig with a 24" water jacket will only handle about 3500 W before I start worrying about vapor escaping. That is just fine for most runs I do.

Otis

[OtisT]

Cap / narrowing
I've seen three typical designs:
-2" to 1/2" reducer before an elbow: http://www.instructables.com/id/Buildin ... ll-design/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
-2" elbow before a 2" to 1/2" reducer: https://milehidistilling.com/product/2- ... tower-kit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
-2" to 1/2" (or 3/4") reducing T with the open top plugged with a cork (which may include a thermometer: https://milehidistilling.com/product/po ... nch-tower/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Firstly, is there and advantage to making a 2" turn before constricting to 1/2"?

I think so. The 2" elbow is much stronger, and I think it looks better too.

Secondly, is there any advantage to extending up past the 'turn' / exit hole and having an open top (plugged with a stopper)?

Sure, why not. You could, with power off, open that cap and add liquid or whatever to the boiler w/o disassembling the rig. I've had to stop a run to add something I forgot more than once. Also a potential for powering off mid run when you hit the hearts, dangling a limited amount of herbs/etc, then starting up again to extract the good stuff. Also gives you they potential to add reflux at some point. Not much of a riser for packing, but you could get at least a plate or two out of that with 10" of mesh. Lots of potential for that port.
[/quote]

Just my opinions, by the way.

Otis

[fafrd]

Condenser

The "size" of the your condenser you need is a factor of how much power you have. A more powerful boiler means you need a more powerful condenser, for the most part. If you use a liebig then making it longer is the simplest way to make it more powerful. Having a larger diameter vapor path also improves efficiency by slowing the vapor down. There are a few vapor speed calculators in the calcs section of the HD Parent site that show the effect of Power and Column Diameter on Vapor Speed.

It has been a while since I have run a 1/2" vapor path liebig to tell you how much power a specific length will handle. I can say that my 3/4" vapor path liebig with a 24" water jacket will only handle about 3500 W before I start worrying about vapor escaping. That is just fine for most runs I do.

Otis

Very helpful - thanks.

So both a longer liebig as well as a larger-diameter liebig are ways to increase throughput. I'm not terribly worried about power/speed but the added cost of making a more powerful liebig seems small, so I'll either go with a longer 1/2" or a 2' 3/4".

I'm not sure how big your pot still is, but if it is anywhere in the 10-20 gallon range, it woukd be helpful to know how long it takes you to do a 19-gallon run with your 3500W boiler?

Also, is there a rule of thumb for how fullthe boiler can be? What is the maximum baych size I should ever put in my 15-gallon keg?

And while we're on the subject of heating elements, I may take the opportunity to ask you an additional question.

My current plan is to use an unmodified keg (only removing the central tube). I'm going to be heating on a burner andI assune I'll be able to rinse the keg out through the triclover.

If/when I decide to go electric, is it possible to install a heating element without cutting the top off of the keg?

[fafrd]

Is there and advantage to making a 2" turn before constricting to 1/2"?

I think so. The 2" elbow is much stronger, and I think it looks better too.

That's all I needed to hear - looks/appearance don't matter to me but strength does. I'd been worried about the strength of the structure supporting the union for the liebig - your statement has sealed it for me - I'll be reducing after the bend.

Secondly, is there any advantage to extending up past the 'turn' / exit hole and having an open top (plugged with a stopper)?

Sure, why not. You could, with power off, open that cap and add liquid or whatever to the boiler w/o disassembling the rig. I've had to stop a run to add something I forgot more than once. Also a potential for powering off mid run when you hit the hearts, dangling a limited amount of herbs/etc, then starting up again to extract the good stuff. Also gives you they potential to add reflux at some point. Not much of a riser for packing, but you could get at least a plate or two out of that with 10" of mesh. Lots of potential for that port.

Just my opinions, by the way.

Otis

Sounds like using a 2" T is much more versatile than using a 2" elbow. Are there any downsides to that top port? Is it difficult to seal with cork (or whatever)? Any risk of the bung blowing out and allowing vapors to escape? Is a rubber stopper an OK material to plug the port with or is rubber (like used for carboy stoppers) a no-no?

I realize this is the beginning of a journey and so building something with future flexibility/optionality is appealing (as long as the impact on cost or complexity is modest).

Another thing I like about the top port is it offers an easy way to add a thermometer or thermometers any time. I have long thermowells and so can easily monitor the temperature of the boiler through the port. Heck, once I rig up an element, I could even precisely control boiler temperature.

If there are no downsides to that top port, I think I'm going to plan on using a T rather than an elbow.

As far as adding reflux 'at some point' do you mean extending the column permanently at some point in the future to add reflux or do you mean opening the port and adding copper wool into the column at some point during the run?

Any chance you could post a picture of your rig? I'd love to see it...

[fafrd]

Another few more questions for OtisT (or anyone):

Copper or Stainless

I think I've understood for the tower itself, there are advantages to using copper over stainless, but what about the condenser?

I'm already planning on using plastic/nylon/polypropyene rather than copper for the jacket and I can also use stainless as easily for the inner jacket as copper - is there any advantage to using copper for the condenser over stainless? I understand that copper conducts heat 20x as efficiently as stainless, but copper pipe is generally at least twice as thick as stainless tubing and between going to a larger diameter and using greater length, any thermal transfer characteristics copper offers can be matched by stainless (at potentially higher cost).

Is there any materials advantage to a copper condenser over a stainless condenser (or vica-versa)?


Plastic/nylon/polypropylene for outer jacket

My original set of questions included a question about condenser jacket material - is there any reason other than cosmetics to avoid use of plastic/nylon/polypropylene fittings/tubing for the condenser jacket?


Adding liquid to boiler partway through

And lastly, OtisT pointed out the advantage a top-port allows as far as adding addditional liquid partway through a run. Is there a readon you woukd want to do this? Is it just when you have slightly more than the maximum capacity of your boiler and just want to finish off without starting a whole new run? Wouldn't the entire heads, hearts, tails division need to be started all over again (from a far less alcoholic starting point in the boiler)?

[OtisT]

Lots of great questions. Also some questions that make me thing you could benefit from reading through the thread in my footer below, cranky's spoon feeding. Lots of good info in the thread that will answer some of these Qs and will address some important safety items you need to know about. I'll try to come back to some of your specific Qs later on.

Otis

[still_stirrin]

Is there and advantage to making a 2" turn before constricting to 1/2"?

I think so. The 2" elbow is much stronger, and I think it looks better too.

+1.

The biggest advantage is the vapor speed. In order to process the vapor rising from a 2” riser, maintaining the 2” piping as long as possible will keep the vapor in a steady flow. As you decrease pipe size, the vapor will accelerate. When that happens, the static pressure will drop as the vapor expands. At the same time, its velocity speeds up to the point that it can’t expand anymore and the flow “chokes”. High speed vapor won’t transfer its heat to a condenser because it doesn’t dwell long enough to liberate the heat. It therefore reduces the condenser’s effectiveness to condense the vapor.

So, keeping the piping large as long as possible as it approaches the product condenser will keep the vapor flow steady and allow the PC to transfer the heat out.

Secondly, is there any advantage to extending up past the 'turn' / exit hole and having an open top (plugged with a stopper)?

Sure, why not. You could, with power off, open that cap and add liquid or whatever to the boiler w/o disassembling the rig... Also gives you they potential to add reflux at some point.... Lots of potential for that port.

Again, +1.

Have a look at DAD300’s CCVM reflux stillhead...that 2” T is the starting point for you. “Future compatibility”....think “forward”.

You may only want/need a potstill now for your products. But, at some point you may want to add some versatility to your products. The CCVM is easily converted from a potstill into a condenser controlled vapor managed reflux stillhead. It is an innovative design which exploits the advantages of vapor managed reflux as well as the simplicity of the “modular” build. It is essentially, “a potstill with a future”. Search for and read all about it.

...Is a rubber stopper an OK material to plug the port with or is rubber (like used for carboy stoppers) a no-no?

NO...just NO. If you put a triclover ferrule on top, you could block the top (in potstill mode) with a blanking plage and clamp...again, future thinking. Or, you could use a 2” (natural) cork stopper...they are available, so just ask.

Another thing I like about the top port is it offers an easy way to add a thermometer or thermometers any time...I could even precisely control boiler temperature...

Well, here’s the thing...on a potstill, you simply DON’T NEED a thermometer. In fact, it will only confuse you. So, don’t plan on installing one. Learn to run the potstill using the feel and the heat input as well as the product flow rate. Forget a thermometer.

But when you get to reflux still operation, the vapor temperature will help you manage the reflux processes.

But this: YOU CANNOT MANAGE THE BOILER TEMPERATURE...EVER. The boiler temperature will always vary with the composition of the wash in it. And since you’re constantly reducing the alcohol in the wash solution, the temperature will continuously vary (increase from the boiling point of pure alcohol towards the boiling point of pure water).

You simply cannot control it with a thermometer. If you don’t understand this...push the “pause” button now and start reading...you’ve a lot to learn.

As a new hobbiest I always suggest: be safe, responsible, and discrete.
ss

[still_stirrin]

I'm already planning on using plastic/nylon/polypropyene rather than copper for the jacket and I can also use stainless as easily for the inner jacket as copper - is there any advantage to using copper for the condenser over stainless?

Yes, copper in the vapor path will help reduce sulfides...you product will smell and taste better.

If you attempt to use plastics (yes, it’s been attempted many times before), the thermal expansion differences between the materials will create leaks. You’ll be chasing repairs as long as you try to use the equipment. My recommendation would be to “bite the bullet” and build with copper entirely. It is easy to solder copper piping and building your condenser will be done (without leaks) straight away. Just do it.

I understand that copper conducts heat 20x as efficiently as stainless, but copper pipe is generally at least twice as thick as stainless tubing and between going to a larger diameter and using greater length, any thermal transfer characteristics copper offers can be matched by stainless (at potentially higher cost)....Is there any materials advantage to a copper condenser over a stainless condenser (or vica-versa)?

Again, heat transfer efficiency is key to overall process efficiency. Granted, the first cost is higher, but if you plan to use the still often, the benefit to your investment will be paid off quickly. “Buy once...cry once”.

My original set of questions included a question about condenser jacket material - is there any reason other than cosmetics to avoid use of plastic/nylon/polypropylene fittings/tubing for the condenser jacket?

Already answered this...stay away from plastics...you’ll thank us soon.

And lastly, OtisT pointed out the advantage a top-port allows as far as adding addditional liquid partway through a run. Is there a reason you would want to do this?

Again, some options have been given “for”. If you don’t understand....you’re still too “green” to know better. Read on and soon you’ll understand.
ss

[fafrd]

Greatly appreciate this post, still_stirrin. Follow-onquestions and clarifications below

Is there and advantage to making a 2" turn before constricting to 1/2"?

I think so. The 2" elbow is much stronger, and I think it looks better too.

+1.

The biggest advantage is the vapor speed. In order to process the vapor rising from a 2” riser, maintaining the 2” piping as long as possible will keep the vapor in a steady flow. As you decrease pipe size, the vapor will accelerate. When that happens, the static pressure will drop as the vapor expands. At the same time, its velocity speeds up to the point that it can’t expand anymore and the flow “chokes”. High speed vapor won’t transfer its heat to a condenser because it doesn’t dwell long enough to liberate the heat. It therefore reduces the condenser’s effectiveness to condense the vapor.

So, keeping the piping large as long as possible as it approaches the product condenser will keep the vapor flow steady and allow the PC to transfer the heat out.

That's what I thought, so thanks for clarifying. I'm currently planning to go with a 2" to 3/4" refucing T. Is there enough of an advantage to going with a 2" T followed by a 2" to 3/4" reducer to justify the added cost?

Secondly, is there any advantage to extending up past the 'turn' / exit hole and having an open top (plugged with a stopper)?

Sure, why not. You could, with power off, open that cap and add liquid or whatever to the boiler w/o disassembling the rig... Also gives you they potential to add reflux at some point.... Lots of potential for that port.

Again, +1.

Have a look at DAD300’s CCVM reflux stillhead...that 2” T is the starting point for you. “Future compatibility”....think “forward”.

You may only want/need a potstill now for your products. But, at some point you may want to add some versatility to your products. The CCVM is easily converted from a potstill into a condenser controlled vapor managed reflux stillhead. It is an innovative design which exploits the advantages of vapor managed reflux as well as the simplicity of the “modular” build. It is essentially, “a potstill with a future”. Search for and read all about it.

I'm going to carefully check out the CCVM design - thank's for the pointer. Future-proofing before I'm locked in is exactly why I joined the Forum and started this thread. Hopefully the CCVM material will help me to understand whether there is any advantage to starting with a 2" tower that is longer than 12...

...Is a rubber stopper an OK material to plug the port with or is rubber (like used for carboy stoppers) a no-no?

NO...just NO. If you put a triclover ferrule on top, you could block the top (in potstill mode) with a blanking plage and clamp...again, future thinking. Or, you could use a 2” (natural) cork stopper...they are available, so just ask.

Both great suggestions - thanks.

I will avoid any future use of rubber anywhere (which is why I asked ), but would appreciate a pointer to a good source of 2" cork stoppers.

The use of a TC cap is very appealing but will be expensive and can always be added later, so I think I'll start with a cork bung to the open too of my 2" T and save the upgrade to another copper 2" TC to when I'm going further down the rabbit-hole .

Another thing I like about the top port is it offers an easy way to add a thermometer or thermometers any time...I could even precisely control boiler temperature...

Well, here’s the thing...on a potstill, you simply DON’T NEED a thermometer. In fact, it will only confuse you. So, don’t plan on installing one. Learn to run the potstill using the feel and the heat input as well as the product flow rate. Forget a thermometer.

But when you get to reflux still operation, the vapor temperature will help you manage the reflux processes.

I just finished reading the newbie threads on thermometers, so I think I understand exactly what you are saying.

On the other hand, I'm already prett set-up with temperature probes and thermowells, so my incremental cost is about $0, those threads did indicate that knowing certain temperatures can help newbies learn (even though making divisions by taste is critical), and with a cork bung, including the possibility of adding temperate proves when the fancy strikes me has absolutely no further impact on the design.

So while I understand and agree that for the initial type of distilling I plan to start with, thermometers are not 'needed', I'm not quite ready to forget about them yet .

But this: YOU CANNOT MANAGE THE BOILER TEMPERATURE...EVER. The boiler temperature will always vary with the composition of the wash in it. And since you’re constantly reducing the alcohol in the wash solution, the temperature will continuously vary (increase from the boiling point of pure alcohol towards the boiling point of pure water).

You simply cannot control it with a thermometer. If you don’t understand this...push the “pause” button now and start reading...you’ve a lot to learn.

So there are a couple things about your statement I don't understand. I'm well-versed in electric temperature control, using it both in winemaking and beermaking (mashing and fermentation), and so while I understand that there may be zero value in controlling boiler temperature, I don't understand why you arecstating that it is impossible.

I'd need an electric element heating the boiler (which I won't have to start but may add eventually), but once I have that, all I need to do is add a thermowell from the top port all the way down into the boiler, close the control to the electric element with one of my PIDs, and I can set the boiler temperature wherever I want (regardless of what is inside the boiler).

So again, perhaps I'm missing something, in which case I'd apprecate an explanation, but it seems to me that controlling the boiler temperature is no more complicated than controlling al electric mashtun or an electric HLT in beer-brewing.

It may add no value at all, but if having that future possibility / flexibility add no cost or complexity, I can't see how that is a bad thing...

As a new hobbiest I always suggest: be safe, responsible, and discrete.
ss

Again, greatly appreciate your contribution to my thread. I'm going to do more reading and study the CCVM design so I don't waste everyone's time with questions that have been already answered 1000 times (sensitive to this from anther thread I am involved where I am one of the most experienced and active 'old dogs' involved ).

[fafrd]

Another great post - thanks for making the effort. More questions / comments below.

-fafrd

I'm already planning on using plastic/nylon/polypropyene rather than copper for the jacket and I can also use stainless as easily for the inner jacket as copper - is there any advantage to using copper for the condenser over stainless?

Yes, copper in the vapor path will help reduce sulfides...you product will smell and taste better.

Sold - I'll go all-copoer for the inner jacket (probably 3/4", still deciding between 2' or 3').

If you attempt to use plastics (yes, it’s been attempted many times before), the thermal expansion differences between the materials will create leaks. You’ll be chasing repairs as long as you try to use the equipment. My recommendation would be to “bite the bullet” and build with copper entirely. It is easy to solder copper piping and building your condenser will be done (without leaks) straight away. Just do it.

Would appreciate any pointers to threads or discussion areas where these leaks are discussed.

Here is what I know from my personal experience:

Properly-sized nylon or polypropylene compression fittings tightened onto copper or stainless tubing do a good job cooling wort (beer) from 212F to 60F through a counterflow chiller (longer version of the Liebig condenser, usually coiled for compactness).

So if the only concern is leaking of some coolant at the pass-through joint of the inner copper jacket, I have a couple of comments:

-it should be possible to design an outer jacket of nylon/polypropylene/plastic/PEX that withstands temperature variation from 55F or even 40F to 212F (beer-brewers do it all the time).

-if the only concern is leaking a bit of coolant, that doesn't seem like a very big deal - should be easy to make a 'drip-guard' so no coolant gets into the product.

-one of the advantage of the nylon/polypropylene compression fittings I am planning to use it that the entire outer jacket can be dissassembled at any time, so if I ever decide you are right and I want a soldered copper outer jacket, I can add that and will just have wasted a bit of PEX tubing and some low-cost plastic fittings...

In short, I'll keep reading before I make any decisions, but your statement about the possibility of some coolant leakage caused by thermal expansion is not dissuading me from trying plastic/nylon/polyproylene/PEX for the outer jacket (especially because of the much lower cost, easier assembly (no soldering) and flexibility (can be dissassembled easily anytime).p).

I understand that copper conducts heat 20x as efficiently as stainless, but copper pipe is generally at least twice as thick as stainless tubing and between going to a larger diameter and using greater length, any thermal transfer characteristics copper offers can be matched by stainless (at potentially higher cost)....Is there any materials advantage to a copper condenser over a stainless condenser (or vica-versa)?

Again, heat transfer efficiency is key to overall process efficiency. Granted, the first cost is higher, but if you plan to use the still often, the benefit to your investment will be paid off quickly. “Buy once...cry once”.

Again, sold on copper over stainless (from you first paragraph) - thanks.

My original set of questions included a question about condenser jacket material - is there any reason other than cosmetics to avoid use of plastic/nylon/polypropylene fittings/tubing for the condenser jacket?

Already answered this...stay away from plastics...you’ll thank us soon.

Again, no disrespect, but I'll need more convincing on this.

The knowledge on this board is light-years ahead of my own when it comes to distillation and design of stills (which is why I'm here;)). When it comes to design and use of basic 2-walled counterflow chillers, I'll need to find some beer-brewers who have successfully built and cooled boiling wort with plastic+copper counter flow chillers who have subsequently tried and failed to use a similar design concept for a 2-walled Liebig to understand what is different about distilling from chilling gallons of wort from boiling to pitch-temps...

And lastly, OtisT pointed out the advantage a top-port allows as far as adding addditional liquid partway through a run. Is there a reason you would want to do this?

Again, some options have been given “for”. If you don’t understand....you’re still too “green” to know better. Read on and soon you’ll understand.
ss

Again, thanks for the feedback and don't want to waste anyone's time. I'll do more reading. As I'm sure you can remember, when first coming to the board as a newbie, it's a bit overwhelming, there is so much information to hunt down and digest. Which is why pointers are so appreciated.

For now, my main focus is on design considerations so I can get my Keg Pot Still built. I've been convinced a top port is the way to go, so I don't need to understand all the nuances of how a top port can be used immediately. Plenty of time to read my way deeper into the rabbit-hole after I have my new still to play with .

And again, greatly appreciate your contributions to and engagement with my thread - I think my design has already improved 10x in just one day between the inputs you and OtisT have provided.

[still_stirrin]

...On the other hand, I'm already pretty set-up with temperature probes and thermowells, so my incremental cost is about $0...thermometers are not 'needed', I'm not quite ready to forget about them yet...so while I understand that there may be zero value in controlling boiler temperature, I don't understand why you are stating that it is impossible...all I need to do is add a thermowell from the top port all the way down into the boiler, close the control to the electric element with one of my PIDs, and I can set the boiler temperature wherever I want (regardless of what is inside the boiler).

It may add no value at all, but if having that future possibility / flexibility add no cost or complexity, I can't see how that is a bad thing....

So, you “think” you know how the distillation process occurs?

A PiD will reduce the heat (kW or kJoules/sec) as you approach the PiD’s set temperature. It allows the temperature to “just reach” the setting. For brewing (mashing grains) this is opportune. It ensures the tmperature will not exceed the desired mash temperature for conversion. As the process progresses and the system loses heat to the surroundings by conduction and convection, the PiD will slowly turn the element on again and keep the temperature constant. This is an excellent use for a PiD controlled heat element.

But for distilling, the saturation temperature (the temperature of the wash mixture where both phases exist....liquid and vapor) will change constantly as the solution changes, that is, as it liberates the alcohol from the mixture. As the alcohol in the mix reduces, the saturation temperature rises...IT IS NOT CONSTANT.

So, attempting to “control” the boiler temperature is fruitless...as you approach the temperature of pure alcohol (173.1*F), your PiD will shut down the heat input. So, you’ll NEVER get the alcohol to boil...activity will stagnate and you’ll watch the still sit there doing nothing!

The mixture will boil at the temperature defined by the saturation point of the mixture at any given moment. Since the alcohol is being depleted, that temperature will increase....provided you continue to add heat (energy).

Temperature is a scaler measurement, not a measurement of energy. For an electric element (resistive load), amperes is a good measurement of the energy input...since the power is proportional to the current squared times the resistive load. More current...more heat (power) input. You adjust the power to adjust the rate of vapor production...and the temperature of the boil will change as the composition changes.

OK...so if you still don’t understand....go read for a while. You should start with Cranky’s Spoon Feed thread and its attached links. There’s a hotlink in my signature. Help yourself...
ss

[still_stirrin]

Here’s a good thread to start reading: viewtopic.php?f=65&t=16635

[fafrd]

So, you “think” you know how the distillation process occurs?

A PiD will reduce the heat (kW or kJoules/sec) as you approach the PiD’s set temperature. It allows the temperature to “just reach” the setting. For brewing (mashing grains) this is opportune. It ensures the tmperature will not exceed the desired mash temperature for conversion. As the process progresses and the system loses heat to the surroundings by conduction and convection, the PiD will slowly turn the element on again and keep the temperature constant. This is an excellent use for a PiD controlled heat element.

But for distilling, the saturation temperature (the temperature of the wash mixture where both phases exist....liquid and vapor) will change constantly as the solution changes, that is, as it liberates the alcohol from the mixture. As the alcohol in the mix reduces, the saturation temperature rises...IT IS NOT CONSTANT.

So, attempting to “control” the boiler temperature is fruitless...as you approach the temperature of pure alcohol (173.1*F), your PiD will shut down the heat input. So, you’ll NEVER get the alcohol to boil...activity will stagnate and you’ll watch the still sit there doing nothing!

The mixture will boil at the temperature defined by the saturation point of the mixture at any given moment. Since the alcohol is being depleted, that temperature will increase....provided you continue to add heat (energy).

Temperature is a scaler measurement, not a measurement of energy. For an electric element (resistive load), amperes is a good measurement of the energy input...since the power is proportional to the current squared times the resistive load. More current...more heat (power) input. You adjust the power to adjust the rate of vapor production...and the temperature of the boil will change as the composition changes.

OK...so if you still don’t understand....go read for a while. You should start with Cranky’s Spoon Feed thread and its attached links. There’s a hotlink in my signature. Help yourself...
ss

This is a very helpful explanation - thanks for making the effort. I'll forget about trying to control boiler temps (which I won't be in a position to do anyway, since I'll be starting with a propane burner as a heat source.).

I've had a chance to read some of the CCVM threads (what does CCVM stand for, anyway?), so I think I've understood the advantages of going with a full 2" T rather than a reducing T.

So I'll plan on spending the extra money for a 2" T plus a 2" to 3/4" reducer.

I've also seen that it is beter to step down more gradually, so 2" to 1-1/2", then 1-1/2" to 1", then 1" to 3/4". I'll price out the cost difference and if not too high % wise, will plan to go that route.

It woukd help to have an idea of what the impact of that more gradual constriction would be for my primary distillation target (distilled modest-ABV wine spirits for use in fortified wine / brandy).

It would also help to know out of the plethora of other distilling applications where this rabbit-hole may take me, which are the ones that would most-benefit from the investment in more gradual constriction..

And one final question - is there any advantage to a more vertical or less vertcal Liebig? I'e seen the pictures with a vertical Liebig but it is not clear to me whether vertical is the best configuration or a sloped Liebig is better.

From a safety perspective, it seems as though locating the output as far away from the heatsource as possible would be a plus (meaning a sloped Liebig)...

[fafrd]

Here’s a good thread to start reading: viewtopic.php?f=65&t=16635

Thanks - I made a quick perusal but you're earlier post made it crystal-clear to me. I may not know much, but I'm a quick learner .

Going to go read Cranky's Spoon Feed thread know...

(hope you understand how amuch I appreciate every link / pointer you throw my way!)

[fafrd]

You should start with Cranky’s Spoon Feed thread and its attached links. There’s a hotlink in my signature. Help yourself...
ss

Oh, so it's a pointer to the master list of pointers - got it.

I certainly understand the 'need to read 'til my eyes bleed' and hopefully will have the time to do that before my first actual run. For now, my focus is on settling on a first design so I can get the parts together and take care of assembly (which will take me some time).

So if there are any other topics you think I should digest before finalizing my design and ordering parts, I'd appreciate which areas to prioritize.

As fas as the design itself, I think this exchange has left me pretty much settled on a CCVM-like design with just a small list of open points:

-plastic/PEX versus copper for outer jacket of Liebig (which is a reversible decision if I elect to start with PEX).
-2"-3/4 reduced versus in investing in more gradual steps
-height of 2" column
-length of 3/4" Liebig

Oh, and I was interested to see that I'd already run into and read several of the threads recommended by Cranky. From the quick scan I just completed, the two that made the biggest impression on me were 'Buy versus Build' and 'Geotagging'.

I came close to just purchasing a completed tower from Milehidistilling rather than going DIY before I decided to join the board and ask some questions - boy am I glad I didn't go that route!

Any suggestion you'd have on 2" column height and 3/4" Liebig length to settle on for a novice like me would be greatly appreciated...

[fafrd]

Another quick question:

One of the things we do with counterflow chillers for wort (beer) is to promote turbulent flow to increase heat transfer efficiency (especially for straight-run chillers).

I believe I saw one or two references to wrapping copper wire around the inner jacket of a Liebig and/or placing a twisted copper ribbon or copper corkscrew within the inner jacket.

Is this a good idea? Is it worth the modest trouble / cost? Will using one or both turbullance-inducers allow the length of the Liebig to be reduced for the same efficiency?

[zapata]

You can probably save yourself a lot of trouble and copy a common simple design and learn how to use it, BEFORE you start. The whys, hows, improvements etc will come as you learn the hobby.

You are trying to understand things, even improve them, and you dont know what you dont know. You also dont know how to interpret the answers you get when you ask. Eg, I have a 2" riser that reduces immediately to 1/2", a 1/2" 90, into a union, another 90* and a 3/4" over 1/2" liebig. I run lots of power through it, and have run many gallons through it completely oblivious to other peoples opinions to keep 2" as long as possible or to reduce it gradually, or that I really need a 3/4" inner tube. And I do have other equipment that follows both design principles and I do not see a difference.

But above you asked 1 question, got one answer, and thanked your lucky stars that now you understand

I'm not being critical, of you nor of experienced stillers that would build something differently than I did. I'm just pointing out that if you seek actual understanding, you will need to put in a lot more effort than you did above. Read 20 to 30 threads on pot stills, like the whole threads, every page, every comment, and you will understand a fair bit of the range of our equipment, who likes what, and some conjecture as to why. But you will have barely scratched the surface of why and how, much less what is best for you.

You seem to be anxious to get on with it, in which case the best bet is to simply copy what many have proven to work and go from there. Skip trying to improve things for now.

Turbulators or not in a liebig? Bah! Probably more effective to just copy somebody's liebig and go! Use turbulators if they did, skip em if they didnt (if you copied mine it would have them, but if I made a new liebig tomorrow I may well skip them for reasons that I know would suit my specific needs but right now nobody really know where you're going to end up).

Honestly, I'd suggest you start with something very similar to your first link. But use two 90s instead of a 90 and a 45, the union let's you set any angle you want and not be limited to 45*.

Its a simple and honest still, very hard to confuse yourself on until you know better. Sure the CCVM design would be future proof if you ever want a CCVM reflux still, but so what? Learn to make brandy on a simple pot still and by then you'll know if you want a reflux still or not, and if so if you want CCVM, or if you pine for a flute blablabla.

Just my $.02 I cant really imagine anybody looking back and regretting a simple pot still. And it saves you the trouble of wanting to use plastics, or corks, or save money on a fitting here or there or use this or that from here and there. Save that for your next still when you know what you're doing, and can understand why others do what they do.

[zapata]

, so is there any reason I might want or might want to avoid making a longer condenser?

If you are using gas for heat, a long liebig let's you collect further away from your flame and is thus a bit safer.

[acfixer69]

You can probably save yourself a lot of trouble and copy a common simple design and learn how to use it, BEFORE you start. The whys, hows, improvements etc will come as you learn the hobby.

You are trying to understand things, even improve them, and you dont know what you dont know. You also dont know how to interpret the answers you get when you ask. Eg, I have a 2" riser that reduces immediately to 1/2", a 1/2" 90, into a union, another 90* and a 3/4" over 1/2" liebig. I run lots of power through it, and have run many gallons through it completely oblivious to other peoples opinions to keep 2" as long as possible or to reduce it gradually, or that I really need a 3/4" inner tube. And I do have other equipment that follows both design principles and I do not see a difference.

But above you asked 1 question, got one answer, and thanked your lucky stars that now you understand

I'm not being critical, of you nor of experienced stillers that would build something differently than I did. I'm just pointing out that if you seek actual understanding, you will need to put in a lot more effort than you did above. Read 20 to 30 threads on pot stills, like the whole threads, every page, every comment, and you will understand a fair bit of the range of our equipment, who likes what, and some conjecture as to why. But you will have barely scratched the surface of why and how, much less what is best for you.

You seem to be anxious to get on with it, in which case the best bet is to simply copy what many have proven to work and go from there. Skip trying to improve things for now.

Turbulators or not in a liebig? Bah! Probably more effective to just copy somebody's liebig and go! Use turbulators if they did, skip em if they didnt (if you copied mine it would have them, but if I made a new liebig tomorrow I may well skip them for reasons that I know would suit my specific needs but right now nobody really know where you're going to end up).

Honestly, I'd suggest you start with something very similar to your first link. But use two 90s instead of a 90 and a 45, the union let's you set any angle you want and not be limited to 45*.

Its a simple and honest still, very hard to confuse yourself on until you know better. Sure the CCVM design would be future proof if you ever want a CCVM reflux still, but so what? Learn to make brandy on a simple pot still and by then you'll know if you want a reflux still or not, and if so if you want CCVM, or if you pine for a flute blablabla.

Just my $.02 I cant really imagine anybody looking back and regretting a simple pot still. And it saves you the trouble of wanting to use plastics, or corks, or save money on a fitting here or there or use this or that from here and there. Save that for your next still when you know what you're doing, and can understand why others do what they do.

Very well said zapata

[zapata]

Also, is there a rule of thumb for how fullthe boiler can be? What is the maximum baych size I should ever put in my 15-gallon keg?

80% max to allow for thermal expansion, bubbling and potential foaming. So about 12 gallons max for a keg.

If/when I decide to go electric, is it possible to install a heating element without cutting the top off of the keg?

Yes. I have a keg with an unmodified top and used a triclamp fitting made to be soldered on the side of the keg. I have also used "weldless" style arrangements that I found far less ideal.

[fafrd]

Also, is there a rule of thumb for how fullthe boiler can be? What is the maximum baych size I should ever put in my 15-gallon keg?

80% max to allow for thermal expansion, bubbling and potential foaming. So about 12 gallons max for a keg.

Thanks - very helpful.

If/when I decide to go electric, is it possible to install a heating element without cutting the top off of the keg?

Yes. I have a keg with an unmodified top and used a triclamp fitting made to be soldered on the side of the keg. I have also used "weldless" style arrangements that I found far less ideal.

Good to know - thanks.

Will definitely be going that way in the future (planning to eventually add an electric element to the keg so I can also use it as an electric Hot Liquor Tank for beer-making), but my first runs will be with a propane burner as the heatsource.

[fafrd]

Greatly appreciate your taking the time for this extensive and baluable post - thanks,

You can probably save yourself a lot of trouble and copy a common simple design and learn how to use it, BEFORE you start. The whys, hows, improvements etc will come as you learn the hobby.

You are trying to understand things, even improve them, and you dont know what you dont know. You also dont know how to interpret the answers you get when you ask. Eg, I have a 2" riser that reduces immediately to 1/2", a 1/2" 90, into a union, another 90* and a 3/4" over 1/2" liebig. I run lots of power through it, and have run many gallons through it completely oblivious to other peoples opinions to keep 2" as long as possible or to reduce it gradually, or that I really need a 3/4" inner tube. And I do have other equipment that follows both design principles and I do not see a difference.

Appreciate the opinion.

The top-port design is appealing both because of the flexibility it offers as well as the fact that it appears to be mechsnically superior (and really any more expensive).

I appreciate your input that it doesn't really offer anyvsubstantive advantages over the basic 'reducing-cap' design, but I'd be more interested if there are any disadvantages to the top-port design from your experience (such as possibility for the cork bung to blow off...).

But above you asked 1 question, got one answer, and thanked your lucky stars that now you understand

I do greatly appreciate all of the expertise on this board and really do not want to waste anyone's time. I am likely to glom onto the first advice I get, so to the extent there is a difference of opinions with early inputs and later inputs (like yours ), a certain amount of zig-zagging anfpd whiplash is inevitable...

I'm not being critical, of you nor of experienced stillers that would build something differently than I did. I'm just pointing out that if you seek actual understanding, you will need to put in a lot more effort than you did above. Read 20 to 30 threads on pot stills, like the whole threads, every page, every comment, and you will understand a fair bit of the range of our equipment, who likes what, and some conjecture as to why. But you will have barely scratched the surface of why and how, much less what is best for you.

You seem to be anxious to get on with it, in which case the best bet is to simply copy what many have proven to work and go from there. Skip trying to improve things for now.

I get the whole 'reading everything' thing and have started that journey. On the other hand, I am eager to get a rig built. I know it will take some time and I've got 20-galllons of mediocre wine that I need to get rid of before harvest this fall...

Turbulators or not in a liebig? Bah! Probably more effective to just copy somebody's liebig and go! Use turbulators if they did, skip em if they didnt (if you copied mine it would have them, but if I made a new liebig tomorrow I may well skip them for reasons that I know would suit my specific needs but right now nobody really know where you're going to end up).

Sold. I saw a couple posts here on the board and asked the question. You've answered it. No need to complicate things anspd ready to move on (one less thing to worry about ).

[quote="zapata"
Honestly, I'd suggest you start with something very similar to your first link. But use two 90s instead of a 90 and a 45, the union let's you set any angle you want and not be limited to 45*.

Its a simple and honest still, very hard to confuse yourself on until you know better. Sure the CCVM design would be future proof if you ever want a CCVM reflux still, but so what? Learn to make brandy on a simple pot still and by then you'll know if you want a reflux still or not, and if so if you want CCVM, or if you pine for a flute blablabla.

Just my $.02 I cant really imagine anybody looking back and regretting a simple pot still. And it saves you the trouble of wanting to use plastics, or corks, or save money on a fitting here or there or use this or that from here and there. Save that for your next still when you know what you're doing, and can understand why others do what they do.[/quote]

Again, appreciate the advice and the input. If there are negatives to the top-port design (such as bung blow-off), I'm ready to abandon the idea. But cost is roughly equivalent, assembly is about the same, and I was already attracted to the udea of a top-port without evening hearing about CCVM.

Would love to hear negatives if there are any - the top-port seems like a simpler design if plugging the port itself is not problematic.

[fafrd]

, so is there any reason I might want or might want to avoid making a longer condenser?

If you are using gas for heat, a long liebig let's you collect further away from your flame and is thus a bit safer.

I though that might be the case - thanks.

The cost differential is modest, so if you were designing a longer condenser for safety to be used with a propane burner, how far away would you like to be or how long of a condenser woukd you recommend?

[fafrd]

Just my $.02 I cant really imagine anybody looking back and regretting a simple pot still. And it saves you the trouble of wanting to use plastics, or corks, or save money on a fitting here or there or use this or that from here and there. Save that for your next still when you know what you're doing, and can understand why others do what they do.

The 'using plastics' thing is still befuddling to me.

First, I am not considering to 'use pastic' anywhere in the product path, only for the outer jacket of the Liebig.

Second, I'm not considering a plastic outer jacket as an 'improvement', but merely because it is much less costly and more importantly far asier to assemble (no soldering).

I'm wide-open to abandoning the idea, but I need a better reason that 'thermal expansion can cause some leaking'.

Among other things, I've built several copper condensers with plastic outer jackets to cool boiling wort - this design will be far easier for me to build than soldering together an outer jacket made of copper.

[zapata]

Double post

[zapata]

You snuck some replies in so I'm just adding to this one...might seem repetitive...

The top-port design is appealing both because of the flexibility it offers as well as the fact that it appears to be mechsnically superior (and really any more expensive).

Of course its mechanically stronger, but to what end? I have a 3.5 foot long lever of a liebig on mine and no imaginable use or even accident could hurt it even using that leverage.

I appreciate your input that it doesn't really offer any substantive advantages over the basic 'reducing-cap' design, but I'd be more interested if there are any disadvantages to the top-port design from your experience (such as possibility for the cork bung to blow off...).

Well, if it forces you to use cork for absolutely no reason, I see that as a major fault. You better not blow it, there must never be any meaningful pressure in a still. But you could forget to put it in, you could lose it, you could get a bad seal, it could get damaged unnoticed and thus leak next run, you could use a crappy conglomerated cork with crappy tasting glue, you could....let a mouse pee on it and never get the smell out? I dont even know.
It's honestly probably not a TERIBLE idea, just an unnecessary not good idea. Why use cork where stainless will do? You could probably make the whole still out of cork, but why? Which is probably weak enough of a straw man to show I just dont like the idea of cork over metal

If you do like every body else and use a triclamp end cap then no, it has no drawbacks. You will clamp the cap on and never remove it, making it foolproof. A ferrule, teflon gasket (the only approved synthetic material), clamp and endcap is probably only $20-$25 or so. And unless you are building in from the beginning the space where the condenser goes in a CCVM, then you will need the TC there to add it on later to make a CCVM.

The possibility of making a CCVM is a benefit no doubt, probably the only one to me. I dont remember once in the 10 years I've been stilling that I ever would have appreciated just having a port through the top. I even had a boiler for years with 3 ports in the top because it came that way. I stuck the still on one, a minimally useful thermometer (to plug the hole), and the 3rd port was available as a fill port. That extra port was never actually helpful. Yes I used it because it was there but I no longer use the boiler and do not miss the fill port at all. I do note someone above said otherwise, but if you forget to add something it really isnt a burden to undo a triclamp and set the riser to the side for a minute while you fill.

In light of you just like the design, cool, make the pot still version of a CCVM, plenty of others like them too. But do it right just use a TC end cap and a solid condenser design.

The cost differential is modest, so if you were designing a longer condenser for safety to be used with a propane burner, how far away would you like to be or how long of a condenser woukd you recommend?

20 feet! I do not remember my propane days fondly and feel much safer with electric. Seriously 3-4 feet is probably fine, but I have seen people that did run like 8 foot condensers just to collect far from the gas though though they were almost comical.

[fafrd]

The top-port design is appealing both because of the flexibility it offers as well as the fact that it appears to be mechsnically superior (and really any more expensive).

Of course its mechanically stronger, but to what end? I have a 3.5 foot long lever of a liebig on mine and no imaginable use or even accident could hurt it even using that leverage.

I appreciate your input that it doesn't really offer any substantive advantages over the basic 'reducing-cap' design, but I'd be more interested if there are any disadvantages to the top-port design from your experience (such as possibility for the cork bung to blow off...).

Well, if it forces you to use cork for absolutely no reason, I see that as a major fault. You better not blow it, there must never be any meaningful pressure in a still. But you could forget to put it in, you could lose it, you could get a bad seal, it could get damaged unnoticed and thus leak next run, you could use a crappy conglomerated cork with crappy tasting glue, you could....let a mouse pee on it and never get the smell out? I dont even know.
It's honestly probably not a TERIBLE idea, just an unnecessary not good idea. Why use cork where stainless will do? You could probably make the whole still out of cork, but why? Which is probably weak enough of a straw man to show I just dont like the idea of cork over metal

I have to admit, I was a bit concerned about the idea of cork contacting vapor when I first saw the concept. You've reinforced that uneasiness, so I'm going to forget the idea of a cork bung...

If you do like every body else and use a triclamp end cap then no, it has no drawbacks. You will clamp the cap on and never remove it, making it foolproof. A ferrule, teflon gasket (the only approved synthetic material), clamp and endcap is probably only $20-$25 or so. And unless you are building in from the beginning the space where the condenser goes in a CCVM, then you will need the TC there to add it on later to make a CCVM.

Understand and agree - if I decide to go with a top-port design, I'll usexa top triclamp ferrule.

The possibility of making a CCVM is a benefit no doubt, probably the only one to me. I dont remember once in the 10 years I've been stilling that I ever would have appreciated just having a port through the top. I even had a boiler for years with 3 ports in the top because it came that way. I stuck the still on one, a minimally useful thermometer (to plug the hole), and the 3rd port was available as a fill port. That extra port was never actually helpful. Yes I used it because it was there but I no longer use the boiler and do not miss the fill port at all. I do note someone above said otherwise, but if you forget to add something it really isnt a burden to undo a triclamp and set the riser to the side for a minute while you fill.

In light of you just like the design, cool, make the pot still version of a CCVM, plenty of others like them too. But do it right just use a TC end cap and a solid condenser design.

I get what you mean about 'doing it right' and I agree. I need to learn more about the CCVM design and understand what advantages/flexibility it offers. I accept that the top-port offers limited utility other than the ability to reconfigure the still (for reflux or whatever).

Not understanding what you mean by 'solid condenser design' and I'm still on the fence between a 1/2" inner jacket versus a 3/4" inner jacket (as well as condenser length to target).

I also need to read up more on 'huffing' to better understand what impact condenser design has on better avoiding it.

Thanks again for your advice.

[zapata]

This is what i meant by solid condenser...

The 'using plastics' thing is still befuddling to me.

First, I am not considering to 'use pastic' anywhere in the product path, only for the outer jacket of the Liebig.

Second, I'm not considering a plastic outer jacket as an 'improvement', but merely because it is much less costly and more importantly far asier to assemble (no soldering).

I'm wide-open to abandoning the idea, but I need a better reason that 'thermal expansion can cause some leaking'.

Among other things, I've built several copper condensers with plastic outer jackets to cool boiling wort - this design will be far easier for me to build than soldering together an outer jacket made of copper.

Again, I'll treat it a bit like the cork, why bother when metal will do? Soldering copper is easy peasy. You're gonna do it at some point if you're stilling, so why dodge it? It's also fun. Cost difference is probably moderate. Amortized over gallons of booze, it's pennies.

It's not that plastic is a terrible idea. It is one many have had, and only a few have been happy with. Interestingly enough the guy that invented CCVM designs, dad300 had a plastic outer liebig he was happy with. Dad is/was a big fan of being as cheap as possible about some things.
I have seen others try and eventually upgrade due to leaks, so it is just more fussy.
My main personal opposition to it is leaks, and is 2 fold.
1. Leaks of vapor or high proof alcohol are the only thing that really worry me. I keep a constant eye on the still, all seals and joints, and the floor around the still. If I spot a drop of liquid my heart misses a beat. I dont want any false alarms, or any known water leaks to make spirit leaks harder to notice.
2. Water SPRAYING worries me. I'm electric so still inside the house (well a finished outbuilding usually). I'm not in a dirt floored barn. I dont need the hassle of water leaks. To put it in perspective my ice maker is plumbed with a copper line because I've seen many a plastic ice maker line fail and flood the house. If code approved plastic plumbing is above my risk tolerance, than sketchy still plumbing is too. Especially because electricity. Now my elements are gfci, but the 120 outlets nearby are not. How much of a risk is this? I dont know, but the LAST way I want my family to find me dead is by me killing myself with a still. And the LAST way I want to get busted is by not killing myself but causing some sort of emergency that involves authorities. I go out of my way to be safer stilling than I am with power tools. If I shock myself with a bad extension cord using a saw in the rain, and someone calls 911 for me, ok, I'm an idiot. I do that during a run and the consequences could be different.

Once you know what you're doing with a still, these are the things I think about while running. How could I do this better, safer. What could go wrong. What would I do if it did.

You'll probably run across dads plastic condenser doing your CCVM research. Pretty sure he eventually replaced it. An all copper liebig will outlive you. Of course it's your choice.

[zapata]

I think huffing is a red herring myself. At that its caused and cured by HOW you run a liebig, not so much the design. As long as the condenser is counterflow by design, which it should be. Too high flow of too cold water causes huffing. Simply turn down your flow till the water exits warm-hot and huffing goes away.

I'm an unrepentant huffer and will huff all day under a few particular configurations. I think I posted on this sometime in the last month if you want to read the specifics, but I think it's a nonissue, and a piece of cake to solve, which I cant be bothered to do.
G'night