Stuff for a 3 inch upgrade

[Corn Cracker]

I've gotten a few things over the last few months with a 3 inch pot still head in mind. I have a 30 inch piece of 3 inch, a 90 and a 3x1 reducer. My current condenser is 1inxh over half inch about 4 foot long. My concern where to reduce that volume of vapor to go either into my 1 inch thumper or straight into the 1 over ¾ condenser i will make for it

[Corn Cracker]

I was thinking of cutting the 3 inch in half giving a 15 inch tall head using the other as the line arm going to the reducer,I plan on getting another 90 to turn steaight down to accommodate for any pooling or smearing at the reducer, any thoughts?

[Salt Must Flow]

I would keep the full height for the riser. I personally prefer a tall riser so I don't have to squat on the floor to collect product.

On the top I would prefer two 90 elbows that way you can adjust the angle of your Liebig condenser to any angle. That joint will pivot very easily and then you can lock it into position with the clamp.

Your Liebig does NOT have to be straight up & down. The reducer will drain as long as you have some downward slope.

EDIT: The site won't let me post pics right now. I'll post a scale drawing of exactly what I'm describing.

[Yummyrum]

What he said

[Yummyrum]

Bit hard to see , but if you zoom in on the pics of it running you can see the Tri-clamp between the two 90°s at the riser which make angling the liebig easy

viewtopic.php?t=89732

[Salt Must Flow]

There you go Yummy. We still can't upload pics, but we can post pics that have already been uploaded

[Yummyrum]

Not sure how you did that SMF , but thanks

EDIT : Corny , just wondering how much power you have to throw at this ?

For me , 2” riser down to a 1”over 3/4” was more than enough on my 50l gas fired keg boiler when driven so hard that flames would leap up the sides .

You say you have a 3” to 1” reducer . Iff’n you have a fuckton of power ( or a crack’n gas burner) , maybe you might consider going to a 1.25 “ over a 1” inner . Seems a waste to have a big riser and then channel it into a 3/4” inner . There will be a big increase in vapour speed that might blast all vapour through with poor condensing .
If you just have “average “ power , then having a 3” rise probably isn’t going to achieve a lot over a smaller diameter one and your proposed 1” over a 3/4” will piss it in regardless .

I guess I’m trying to say that the riser is generally not the bottle neck . It is usually the condenser open area .

The boiler makes the vapour , the condenser condenses it . The Riser is merely the inter connection .

If the Condenser can’t cope with the amount of vapour that the boiler is producing , changing the riser size won’t help .

1/2” tube had area 0.196” ^2
3/4” tube has area 0.441” ^2
1” tube has area 0.785” ^2

A long 1” liebig has as about as much knockdown as a 4 barrel 1/2” shotty .

[Corn Cracker]

Ive got a 4500 watt element heating the still, the bottleneck is what im concerned about, going from 3 inch to ¾ seemed a bit too much of a restriction.
I know from the cleaning run with my 2 inch riser and my 1 inch over ½ liebig, steam was shooting out 3 foot before it started dissaipating up, that was a lot more vapor speed than I was used to. The 3 inch will, from my understanding, increase that take off speed. Im not even sure I need to go to 3 inch but, it seemed like a good plan for a 3 inch head on a pot.

I was meaning to 90 the reducer down to get past it in a vertical position and then another 45 or 90 to get back to somewhat horizontal

[OtisT]

The diameter of the riser does not impact the rate you collect at, the take off speed. On a pot still, POWER is the only variable. (Discounting passive reflux and such).

The larger diameter and a tall riser will give you a lot more tolerance for foaming with more volume on the vapor side. It will also add some passive reflux and copper contact that are all beneficial.

I think placing the reducer on the horizontal is the way to go.

[Pure Old Possum Piss]

Personally, since you have 4.5kw to work with I'd go 4" on Riser then 2" to thumper or product condenser. You can use a 2>1 reducer with triclamps to hook to thumper or PC.
The larger the diameter of your PC, the longer the vapor dwell time and more efficiently uses water and more power it'll handle.
Main thing is to go larger than you think you need, you can always run it slower if you want. Besides it'll save you having to upgrade in a year or two, and Materials never be cheaper in the future. I'm currently using a 18" long liebig with a 1" pipe and 2" jacket, it'll handle 8Kw and knock it all down. But if I bump power up to 11Kw it starts to get vapor bypass though.i should have gone a little longer.

[Pure Old Possum Piss]

The diameter of the riser does not impact the rate you collect at, the take off speed. On a pot still, POWER is the only variable. (Discounting passive reflux and such).

The larger diameter and a tall riser will give you a lot more tolerance for foaming with more volume on the vapor side. It will also add some passive reflux and copper contact that are all beneficial.

I think placing the reducer on the horizontal is the way to go.

Not sure I understand what your saying, Otis.
From my experience I've always understood that column/riser diameter has a direct affect on takeoff rates. If a 1" column produces 1 qt/hr, a 2" may produce 2qts/hr, but a 3" would produce 4qts/hr. My 4" puts out about 6-8qts/hr depending on if I'm stripping or not. Of course you need a PC that will knock down all that vapor.
I've thought about upgrading to a 6" or 8" column, not because I want to fill barrels but because my wife has Dementia and I can't leave her alone for long. When I used a 2" it took all day for a run so I stepped up to 4". That cut my time away from her by more than half. Plus after 40 years of doing this I no longer find it fun to sit in a hot shack starting a stream and changing jars.
The larger diameter definitely helps with foaming problems.
PS this is for columns, not pot stills.

[SW_Shiner]

The diameter of the riser does not impact the rate you collect at, the take off speed. On a pot still, POWER is the only variable. (Discounting passive reflux and such).

The larger diameter and a tall riser will give you a lot more tolerance for foaming with more volume on the vapor side. It will also add some passive reflux and copper contact that are all beneficial.

I think placing the reducer on the horizontal is the way to go.

Not sure I understand what your saying, Otis.
From my experience I've always understood that column/riser These two terms are not interchangeable. Column for reflux, riser for pot still. diameter has a direct affect on takeoff rates. If a 1" column produces 1 qt/hr, a 2" may produce 2qts/hr, but a 3" would produce 4qts/hr. My 4" puts out about 6-8qts/hr depending on if I'm stripping or not. Of course you need a PC that will knock down all that vapor. This is true for a reflux still, to a degree, its not perfectly linear. But for pot stills, the only dimention that really matters for take off speed is condenser size. The other factor for speed is power input.
I've thought about upgrading to a 6" or 8" column, not because I want to fill barrels but because my wife has Dementia and I can't leave her alone for long. When I used a 2" it took all day for a run so I stepped up to 4". That cut my time away from her by more than half. Plus after 40 years of doing this I no longer find it fun to sit in a hot shack starting a stream and changing jars.
The larger diameter definitely helps with foaming problems.
PS this is for columns, not pot stills.

[Salt Must Flow]

The diameter of the riser does not impact the rate you collect at, the take off speed. On a pot still, POWER is the only variable. (Discounting passive reflux and such).

The larger diameter and a tall riser will give you a lot more tolerance for foaming with more volume on the vapor side. It will also add some passive reflux and copper contact that are all beneficial.

I think placing the reducer on the horizontal is the way to go.

Not sure I understand what your saying, Otis.
From my experience I've always understood that column/riser diameter has a direct affect on takeoff rates. If a 1" column produces 1 qt/hr, a 2" may produce 2qts/hr, but a 3" would produce 4qts/hr. My 4" puts out about 6-8qts/hr depending on if I'm stripping or not. Of course you need a PC that will knock down all that vapor.
I've thought about upgrading to a 6" or 8" column, not because I want to fill barrels but because my wife has Dementia and I can't leave her alone for long. When I used a 2" it took all day for a run so I stepped up to 4". That cut my time away from her by more than half. Plus after 40 years of doing this I no longer find it fun to sit in a hot shack starting a stream and changing jars.
The larger diameter definitely helps with foaming problems.
PS this is for columns, not pot stills.

Diameter does not cause take-off rates to be faster or slower on a basic pot still. Increased 'power input' is what creates more vapor. The diameter of a riser does not affect the take-off rate, it only provides an area for the vapor to rise through. Larger dia has more area than smaller dia. That's why a basic pot still with a 2" riser performs identically one with a 3" or 4" riser. It's all about power input.

Now with a reflux column it's a bit different. IF you are accustomed to operating a reflux column that's X diameter with a specific power input and take-off rate ... you can upgrade to a column that's larger in dia that has twice the 'cross-sectional area' for instance. That will allow you to operate at twice the power and twice the take-off rate. This is made possible because you have twice the area of packing to interact with twice the rising vapor and twice the falling reflux. Here it's all about Cross-Sectional Area.