Functi-Flute - Design

[Chiller]

So I have been trying to resist making myself one of the beauties that are flutes, but with a trip to US coming up and an opportunity for some cheap(er) copper, I gave in.

The plan is to use KS' 20" body, the drop-in dephleg, and 4 perf plates. The reason the thread is named 'Functi-Flute' is that it will be designed to be functional to the practical maximum, while minimizing on costs - which i think is a style in itself

Here is my quick diagram: (I know y'all are gettin old so made the annotations big )



I am considering changing the side vapor port to the standard 2x90deg elbows, as I'm not sure how much stability just sticking the 54mm into the body will provide, however I do like the unique-ness of the side takeoff (I haven't seen anyone do it yet).

There won't be any build pics except for the shotguns for 3 weeks, thats how long I'll be on your side of the world

Constructive criticism, ideas and budget bashing welcome

[olddog]

The side takeoff is part of the design for Flute mark II, here is Stumpy which was the the prototype. http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 4#p6891244



OD

[Rum Bum]

Are there any significant benefits of the side take-off beside reducing cost? It would save you from having to buy a coupler and an elbow, I know, but what are the other pro's and some cons of that design compared to the original. Maybe it's too minor of a detail to even bring up.
RB

[olddog]

Are there any significant benefits of the side take-off beside reducing cost? It would save you from having to buy a coupler and an elbow,

I did not notice any significant benefit, other that saving the cost of two 4"-2"reducers and 2 couplers, to build the dephlegmater, then 2 elbows for the takeoff, which amounts to around $70 saving in the cost of fittings.



OD

[Rum Bum]

Not to be picky OD and my apologies if I'm wrong but won't it only save you one reducer (the reducer that would lead to the first elbow), and that elbow just mentioned, and not 2 of each.

Either way it's still a savings, just more like $35 instead of $70

Maybe I'm not getting a clear picture of this, my apologies if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to call you out on anything. I'm just trying to get a clearer understanding, please correct me if I'm not seeing it right.

So all it really is is an aesthetic difference? Looking at still designs it seems that whiskey stills have a sharper and more suddenly angled descending neck, while rum stills have a more graceful flowing swan-like neck. I'm not saying that one is at a greater angle downwards than the other but at the transition point from the top of the column to the first downward bend, toward the take off, one is more abruptly angled (whiskey stills). I hope everyone can visualize what I mean.

This has just been my own observations... though OD, you've been looking at stills a lot longer than most, or maybe all of us, what are some specific attributes that define spirit specific stills that you've noticed? Chime in if you have any wisdom on the matter.

RB

[Chiller]

Ah yes, stumpy, I think I understand the plumbing on the regular flute, but these 3 way ball valves confuse me, how exactly does it work?

Also, the best I've found 4x2 reducers for is 40$, where does everyone get theirs from?

[Chiller]

Just had a thought concerning the flooding of plates when using tubular downcomers as opposed to weir downcomers:

Using a handy internet calculator, by inputting the radius (2") and segment height (12mm as specified by OD and Sam), I found the area of the weir to be 0.83458 sq in. Converting to metric and putting it into a simple circle area calculation we have:

538.43763mm=pi*r*r

538.43763mm/pi=r^2

(538.43763mm/pi)^1/2 = r = 13.0916012mm

Hence the diameter of an equivalent tubular downcomer would have to be 26.1832024mm This is rather close to the common 28mm here in the UK, or 1" in the states, the cross-sectional area of which being roughly 3 times larger than the current 15mm employed as a downcomer in Sam's spec of OD's magic flute. Obviously this is not a final answer as flooding is affected by available over-flow length (the length of the weir, or circumference of the tubular) and other factors - in fact, having written this, I now wonder if this has anything to do with it at all as the water flowing down the tubular downcomers is quite fast and there would have to be a significant (more than is going back down between plates in a flute) flow to make a larger diameter tubular downcomer useful.

What do you guys think? Are the 15mm downcomers taking that much redistillate that a larger dia is necessary? Is it something to do with available over-flow length? Or is it something else entirely?

Chiller

EDIT: Maybe it's something to do with the retention cups? The flow areas in the cup are larger than the dia of the tubular, so that would lead me to think that the cups and distance from the cups are not an issue, but taking into account that the redistillate is significantly turbulant (and making 2 90deg turns), the dia of the cup in proportion to the dia of the downcomer and the distance from the bottom of the downcomer to the bottom of the cup could be causing the flooding issues.