Home Distiller

bunny wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 6:52 amI'm not really sure how to compare these.

The simplest test is just to compare them under total reflux. So load a precise volume of a known ABV still charge, hold at full reflux as long as you can stand, and measure temp at the top. Repeat for the other packing (with a fresh still charge). Splitting a wash is an easy way to ensure the charges are identical. Lowest temp wins, for a single use case (full reflux). Behavior under different conditions are important aspects of packing, but harder to quantify and harder to compare while keeping all other variables equal.

That sounds reasonable zapata.
Here is what I did today:
I was finishing up a spirit run on 13L of low wines from my sugar wash.
When it started to come into tails I stopped and thought about it for a few minutes.
Pulled the plug and I dumped all the heads back into the boiler through the RC.
Then I put my toothpick into the jet and ran full reflux for 8-10 minutes 52V @ 4.8A(250W)(172*F).
Next I timed a 100ml collection at these settings ------ 17 minutes.
Then I pulled the jet, timed and collected another 100ml sample------- 4 minutes, 30 seconds.
Pulled the plug again and dumped the 200ml back into the boiler.
Changed out the Siporax for the small lava and restarted the reflux.
After another 8-10 minutes of reflux I was back pretty much the same place as with the Siporax: 52V @ 4.8A (250W) (172*F)
Repeating the 2 collections as above gave almost the same results: 17 minutes, and 4 minutes, 15 seconds.
Under these conditions in my 1 inch setup there doesn't seem to be much, if any, real difference.
Well, there you have it then!
Any questions?

A few things about the test, it's much easier to see differences at lower abv due to the shape of the equilibrium curve. Also, when you first swapped packings, you lost the alcohol heldup in the packing (though less so when you switched back again).
What is the resolution of the thermometer? Obviously it's either not accurate, or you are not at sea level, because 172 is below the boiling point of pure ethanol, it's within spitting distance of the 97.2% azeotrope, but (no offense) probably not in that still. Regardless of accuracy or altitude, how fine does it read? The difference between x.5 and x+.9 in Fahrenheit can be several % ABV even though they would read to the same whole degree on a thermometer with perfect accuracy but only 1 degree of resolution.

Like you said, maybe not much of a difference at your scale for what you're doing. Especially if we trusted your thermometer alone and just decided you were making 101% ABV from either packing

If you want a better assessment for yourself, setup with a weaker boiler charge or less packed height so your product is < 70% and use a thermometer with at least .1 resolution. Knowing the actual strength of the boiler charge will let you calculate HETP to allow a standardized comparison, but isn't necessary just to test which one performs better in a given still.

Using the instrumentation currently available to me, your suggested test resulted in a draw.
This is probably good enough for me and sufficient to choose on which packing I wish to spend my limited funds.
Thanks for your comments.

I gave these a try yesterday (using the 1/2” ceramic). Using 36” packed in a 4” column I was hitting 188 proof when checked today. I was pulling about two quarts and hour for the takeoff using the 5500 watt element wide open on a 13 gallon charge of 38% BW low wines. I’m wondering if I needed a little more power to throw at the 4”? I would have thought it would produce comfortably at that rate and hit 95%.

With a 38% boiler charge, I would have expected a higher ABV than 188

Just checked a few jars again at 94%. I had a gallon of low wines that I didn’t run sealed in a couple jars and i was off a little 35% on the low wines. I was expecting higher as well?

NineInchNails wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 5:42 am I just weighed the Ceramic Rings again after giving it a lot more time to dry.

1 gal = 7.70625 lbs wet
1 gal = 6.4125 lbs dry

I was considering building a column using broken-up terracotta plant pots as packing but knowing that they're porous and absorb liquid I wanted to do a bit of research, and I think I have concluded that it is probably something I won't try. This absorption makes me believe that there will be significant smearing in the product. Has anyone using this porous material that also has experience with non-porous material like marbles, copper or stainless scrubbies noticed a difference in flavor between the different medias?

Jake, I do use broken terracotta plant pots as boiling chips, and after each run they change the color as if they absorb some nasties.
Also in my country it is used to age arak in it.
would like to hear from you if you try it as column fillings, sounds interesting.

jake_jimmylegs wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:34 pm I was considering building a column using broken-up terracotta plant pots as packing but knowing that they're porous and absorb liquid I wanted to do a bit of research,

Terracotta is far less porous than scoria/lava rocks. It should be fine provided it is unglazed.

greggn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:02 am
Terracotta is far less porous than scoria/lava rocks. It should be fine provided it is unglazed.

I'm pretty sure I've abandoned the idea. I bought one terracotta pot several years ago just to break up and use a piece of it, after soaking in water, to throw into my brown sugar to re-soften it. Since feints and heads are the first to come up the column I don't want any chance of them soaking in and sneaking in to the product throughout the run.

I’m pretty sure that as it comes up to temp and equilibrium that the higher volatiles evaporate.

Cheers,
-jonny

I don't know, judging by the comments on drying the stuff out it seems problematic.

When shutting down at the tail end of the run i’d thing they will soak up whatever’s left in the column. Next run up to temp with full reflux will wash all that back down into the boiler until it comes back up again.

I see your point. Why even use something porous - what benefit? If it self cleans what detriment?

Cheers,
Jonny

I just read this thread and i think I want to try this when i eventually get around to building my column.
I didn't see much mention of 2 inch columns so I wondered if these 1/2 inch ceramic filter rings would work very well in a 2 inch setup?

Zeotropic, you generally want to scale the size of packing to your column. That being said, I'd go with 3/8" as that's the smallest of it's type (that I've seen)

Perhaps saturating the media in water pre-run would limit the amount of feints/heads the material would absorb, plus higher boiling temp of the water would also have the tendency to not 'trade places' with the lighter alcohols. I just rebuilt my liebig due to it somehow had water left in the jacket and froze and I'm overall happy with the way my column works with SS scrubbers, basically a glorified pot still but wanted to explore another column/head for making some azeo. For the amount of azeo that I need, well I really only need 80-90 abv for my intended project and it doesn't have to be tasteless... I can get that with the current column and liebig directly off of a mash so I'll probably not change anything. I love problems that solve themselves.

hellbilly007 wrote:Zeotropic, you generally want to scale the size of packing to your column. That being said, I'd go with 3/8" as that's the smallest of it's type (that I've seen)

That's what I thought but I haven't found anything smaller than 1/2 inch yet.
I will keep looking.

On this topic.

For calculation purposes, does the sight glass form part of the column height if unpacked. I would think the column height only refers to the packed section?

What is wrong with packing the sight glass. Will one get puking?

5 pages of reading... what i learned 1/2 x 1/2 ceramic beads in a 3" column w/ a tad under 3kw and close to azeo.
Sounds delightful.

30xs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:43 pm Using 36” packed in a 4” column I was hitting 188 proof when checked today. I was pulling about two quarts and hour for the takeoff using the 5500 watt element wide open on a 13 gallon charge of 38% BW low wines. I’m wondering if I needed a little more power to throw at the 4”? I would have thought it would produce comfortably at that rate and hit 95%.

I have an 18 gal with 2 X 4500w heaters
With a taller 4” column, the sweet spot is about 7kw divided between the heaters.

If I were running your rig and wanted 95%
I'd run the heater @ 100% and decrease the take off rate until it hit 95%
Then measure and record.


36” packed in a 4” column is only 9 x Longer than it's Diameter.
Taller is better. Get another 36" spool, that would make for a 18:1 LD ratio. That's close enough to 20.

Next the boiler's going to need another heater.
A 4" column can handle more than 5500w.

Are you layering copper mesh with the rings, or using another way to get copper in the vapor path?

I am running 4” x 60” CM column with 15mm x 15 mm Siporax.
Running at 34+ amps 17+ amps per element (2). 8100/8300 KW
My take off rate is approximately 8.75 liters or 2.3 gallons an hour of 95.4% abv from 40% low wines.
I am very happy with this set-up, and even though I never ever leave my still unattended this thing runs like it’s on automatic pilot
If I had a taller ceiling I would have gone a couple more feet which I believe would have increased my ABV and take off rate.
But like I said I am very happy with the way it has worked out

How are you getting copper into the vapor path? I’m planning on adding layers of copper mesh. Thoughts?

Hambone wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 7:37 am How are you getting copper into the vapor path? I’m planning on adding layers of copper mesh. Thoughts?

My column is copper. If it was not, I don’t think I would add layers of copper mesh in between the media. Maybe have copper mesh (approximately 2”) rolled up tight at the bottom and top. You could also add copper boil chips in the boiler.

Windy City wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 8:18 am

Hambone wrote: ↑Sun May 30, 2021 7:37 am How are you getting copper into the vapor path? I’m planning on adding layers of copper mesh. Thoughts?

My column is copper. If it was not, I don’t think I would add layers of copper mesh in between the media. Maybe have copper mesh (approximately 2”) rolled up tight at the bottom and top. You could also add copper boil chips in the boiler.

My boiler is copper, but went stainless for spools.

[/quote]
My boiler is copper, but went stainless for spools.
[/quote]

You should be fine then

Well, I threw in the towel on my cinder rock and just bought 9/16” Siporax rings for my 4” column.

It’s not that the cinder rocks did not work for me, but something got into my medium size graded rocks while they were not in use, stored in a bucket. After a good run with my small rocks I reloaded the column with previously used medium sized rock and I did another run. When I finally got around to doing cuts on this new batch, I found that something had ruined my product. A bad taste from beginning to end. The only thing different on this batch was replacing my small rock with bigger rock, and I discovered that the rocks in the column after the run now smelled like pine sol cleaner. After all that time grading, cleaning and testing, I’m a bit bummed. I’m not doing all that work again, so I recently spent $160 for 11 liters of Siporax rings to fill my 4”. (FYI, 11 liters is just a little more than I need to fill my column to it’s max packing height of 53”).

These rings are extremely porous and very light as compared to the rocks. That light weight is really nice.

I have some questions for you all that use these porous rings. Do they retain tails oil any more that other packing you have used? Any special cleaning required if you drag too much tails into the column before it can be shut dow?

Do you dry these between runs when they are going to set for a long while? I don’t want stuff growing in them, and think that a few hours in the oven to dry them out ma be warranted because these things are so porous. I only make neutral once or twice a year.

And of course, I’m not storing this stuff in an open bucket again.

Otis

I have Siporax and have found it drains and dries easily, no special care in that regard. I have found a tailsy note when shooting for clean neutral on occasion and wonder if a good soak would be a good idea after a run. I think it was me not rinsing it enough TBH. I still run marbles more often.

I use 15 mm Siporax and never take my column apart. I do have clean in place on my columns which is just a hot water rinse. I have never had a problem with tails flavor bleeding through on any following spirit runs. Most fores/heads should clean out any tails that left over