2" column with deflagmater?

[Chroi]

OK, I've looked and looked but haven't found anything to answer this:

What happens if I put a 2" shotgun on top of a 2" packed column and add a U at the top going to a product condenser?

Essentially making a 2" "flute" with no physical plates.

Is this worth the time or am I missing something?

I'm building the components anyway for other purposes, just wondering what happens if I assemble them in this fashion.

Also, same question, but with the deflag in between a pot still takeoff and thumper (that is large enough to contain the entire run)

[Sungy]

A 2 inch dephleg would work with a packed column, ubend and product conenser. But I think it would not make sense to run on a pot. Why would you want to reflux into your pot still? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a pot still?

[Chroi]

A 2 inch dephleg would work with a packed column, ubend and product conenser. But I think it would not make sense to run on a pot. Why would you want to reflux into your pot still? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a pot still?

Forget all that, what I was getting at is why is no-one running a 2" packed deflag-topped column to achieve potstill takeoff and full flavor carry over for a fraction of the cost and complexity of a 4" plated flute???



Also, I somewhat disagree. In my mind, a 2-3 plate flute is an enhanced pot still, designed to carry flavor cleanly and at high ABV.

a 20 plater is a different animal....

upon further reflection,i guess it doesn't make sense to add the thumper. If the deflag works, you can put it anywhere between 0-100% reflux.

So the .5 plate of the thumper is just redundant. but then why are guys running bubble balls, inline thumpers and the like under packed columns??

[Sungy]

A 2 inch dephleg would work with a packed column, ubend and product conenser. But I think it would not make sense to run on a pot. Why would you want to reflux into your pot still? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a pot still?

Forget all that
,OK, done.

what I was getting at is why is no-one running a 2" packed deflag-topped column to achieve potstill takeoff and full flavor carry over for a fraction of the cost and complexity of a 4" plated flute???
Speed is why larger columns are used

Also, I somewhat disagree.
Im cool with that

In my mind, a 2-3 plate flute is an enhanced pot still, designed to carry flavor cleanly and at high ABV.
Not so, I think reading the post " Flute Talk " may answer a lot of your questions.

a 20 plater is a different animal....
It sure is

upon further reflection,i guess it doesn't make sense to add the thumper. If the deflag works, you can put it anywhere between 0-100% reflux.

So the .5 plate of the thumper is just redundant. but then why are guys running bubble balls, inline thumpers and the like under packed columns??
To increase ABV before getting into the packing section of the column and then condensers

[Chroi]

In my mind, a 2-3 plate flute is an enhanced pot still, designed to carry flavor cleanly and at high ABV.
Not so, I think reading the post " Flute Talk " may answer a lot of your questions.




That was dumb of me to say. I hear you 100% and I've read that thread many times over. It's a reflux still no question, not trying to argue against that. You're right, its not a more complicated pot still. my point was a small number of plates are designed to carry flavor. I've got other builds for neutral.

I'm more interested in an economized 2" packed "flute" that would easily take off a gallon/hr with modest heat input and be dirt simple to put together with readily available components.

[Sungy]

Id be interested in that too.

It has been tried and the out come was not great. You need a larger diameter column to process that kind of vapor. Taller column increases ABV, larger diameter increases speed.

[Brendan]

Regardless of the fact that there is a reflux condenser and hence technically a reflux still, performance wise a plated column/flute with only a few plates, is just an enhanced pot still. Commonly on the Aussie forums where these things are staple equipment for the majority of members, these have always just been referred to as glorified pot stills. So don't worry Chroi, not a stupid statement at all!

There's no reason you can't do what you're talking about and put a dephlegmator on top of a packed column...if you want pot still flavour though, probably not, as your HETP will be too high. But for a high ABV neutral where you want takeoff speed, sure. If you're talking about a super clean vodka, might be a bit harder to achieve, which is where the benefits of some of those slower rigs like a VM become prevalent.

[wv_cooker]

What you are talking about building is a 2" CM or coolant management reflux still. It would in my opinion be an excellent still. I have just about finished up a 3" version myself. with a cm you can turn off the dephlegmator and run it as a pot still or run in full reflux for neutrals. you can also adjust the reflux anywhere in between if you wish. experiment with different packings and you can use this type still to make anything you wish.

As far as a flute goes it is just a plated column with usually a CM management system. Though actual physical plates don't work very well below 3" it has been done in 2" as well.

larger columns are used mostly for slower vapor speeds to create faster take off rate and save time but essentially a CM is a CM no matter what size the column or if you have physical plates or packing. Hope this helps

[Chroi]

lol gotcha. so I'm trying to reinvent a very old wheel

Only asked bc I have a modular setup and could throw this together easily.

[wv_cooker]

lol gotcha. so I'm trying to reinvent a very old wheel

Only asked bc I have a modular setup and could throw this together easily.

Well not reinventing a wheel but experimentation is always fun. Try it you might just like what you come up with. I am of the opinion CM's are under rated because of the old style ones that are so publicized. New style cm's are a pleasure and do more in my opinion than most other stills. They say CM's are no good but most every flute made is nothing more than a CM reflux column, the only difference is a few physical plates instead of a lot of theoretical plates lol.

[Chroi]

lol gotcha. so I'm trying to reinvent a very old wheel

Only asked bc I have a modular setup and could throw this together easily.

Well not reinventing a wheel but experimentation is always fun. Try it you might just like what you come up with. I am of the opinion CM's are under rated because of the old style ones that are so publicized. New style cm's are a pleasure and do more in my opinion than most other stills. They say CM's are no good but most every flute made is nothing more than a CM reflux column, the only difference is a few physical plates instead of a lot of theoretical plates lol.

Agreed. I'm guilty of not even looking at a CM design unless it was a flute.

[googe]

I'm with cookey, best versatile still management there is. Do some reading chior, tons of info about them here!!.

[Bushman]

Well not reinventing a wheel but experimentation is always fun. Try it you might just like what you come up with. I am of the opinion CM's are under rated because of the old style ones that are so publicized. New style cm's are a pleasure and do more in my opinion than most other stills. They say CM's are no good but most every flute made is nothing more than a CM reflux column, the only difference is a few physical plates instead of a lot of theoretical plates lol.

Agreed. I'm guilty of not even looking at a CM design unless it was a flute.

What wv_cooker says it true, I have even changed/edited some of the posts in the New Distillers Reading Lounge as the original designs such as "The World Class Still" that are posted with plans on the internet were very rudimentary and did not allow the flexibility of todays designs. Both Prairiepiss and I have tried to post the disclaimers. It doesn't have to be a flute to be a good CM either what is needed is separate valves to the RC and PC to have better control. With a well built RC (reflux condenser) you can knock down 100% of the vapors that allow you to get higher purity and better separation, also with a separate valve you can collect at different rates depending on the type of alcohol you are making. The older CM designs and where they got their bad rap did not have these functions thus was more of a modified pot still to perform some reflux (this last statement maybe an over simplification) but you get my point.

[googe]

I'll also add, you don't need separate valves for control, just a system that suits your still and you. I use one valve, it suits me and my still, like other setups suit other people.

[Bushman]

I'll also add, you don't need separate valves for control, just a system that suits your still and you. I use one valve, it suits me and my still, like other setups suit other people.

Agree to Disagree, do you need separate valves NO, do I have better control-I believe so!

[wv_cooker]

I'll also add, you don't need separate valves for control, just a system that suits your still and you. I use one valve, it suits me and my still, like other setups suit other people.

Agree to Disagree, do you need separate valves NO, do I have better control-I believe so!

On any cm that I have run and it is rapidly becoming several I have separate valves. I also know googe has much experience at running his many different versions with good success. CM stills are actually managed best with coolant temperature or flow control which controls the coolant temperature ultimately. So to me that is much easier done with the use of 2 valves, but I have known many that use only one valve and also known a few to use a 3 way valve. I believe at one time even OD the originator of the hobby Flute used a 3 way Valve.

So I can see this being a matter of cost and personal preference to a point but have to agree with Bushman that my personal preference is 2 separate controls give me a more efficient response from my rigs. I personally feel that this type cm is a fantastic starter still because you can do what every new distiller has in mind when they first come here and that is make everything or anything with them, even pot stilled liquor.

You can also build them in any size you wish from 2" on up so they are just as cost effective as any other type still and maybe even easier to build than many other types.
Just my 2 cents.

[Bushman]

Just goes to show that there are many ways to skin a cat as they say. This is where new members get confused as there is really no right or wrong answer just personal preference and experience.

[badbird]

Have to agree, CM RULES
But if you can go for 3", You wont regret the faster take off rate.

The only advantage I found was running multiple valves was having the ability to disable the RC for tails stripping, etc in pot still mode.
The biggest improvement came from fitting one of the needle valve flow meters, makes it much easier to dial in predictable amount of reflux run after run.