zed255 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:12 pm
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.
Do you notice a performance difference between the marbles and rings?
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:59 am
by zed255
Windy City wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 9:13 pm
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
I don't have it happen all the time, maybe twice, where the run seemed like tails got carried through somehow. I blamed it on the porous nature of Siporax and me not rinsing well enough. I have more runs using marbles and have never had tails show up unexpectedly using them. I also unload the packing, so what was at the bottom, and therefore most saturated with tails, could end up anywhere in the column next time I load it.
I agree that the initial startup should rinse the tails down, but I guess I can't rely on that all the time.
zed255 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:12 pm
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.
Do you notice a performance difference between the marbles and rings?
I can't say there was a night and day difference. I believe you have to re-tune a few operational parameters when changing your reflux medium to optimize the run, so runs with different packing may not be directly comparable. I find the only real disadvantage of marbles is the weight, which is not a problem for me.
zed255 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:12 pm
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.
Do you notice a performance difference between the marbles and rings?
I can't say there was a night and day difference. I believe you have to re-tune a few operational parameters when changing your reflux medium to optimize the run, so runs with different packing may not be directly comparable. I find the only real disadvantage of marbles is the weight, which is not a problem for me.
Awesome! That answers my question perfectly!
I'm assuming that due to surface area that the main difference would be that you might get a slight ABV bump with the lava rock and ceramic rings having a larger surface area?
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:14 pm
by zed255
I'm willing to bet the HETP of the Siporax is shorter than marbles by some indeterminate amount. I did get a slight bump in ABV at a slightly faster take off rate, but by how much I can't say. I did not really try and truly push the Siporax to the max, just lightly tested the bounds. I wouldn't snub the product but in my stillin' room it is not superior by any meaningful margin to marbles, or even copper mesh / SS scrubbies.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:28 pm
by OtisT
Thank you Zed and Windy City for the replies. I am excited to try my new packing.
Otis
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:51 am
by squigglefunk
zed255 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:12 pm
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 tried ceramic media and I found it was trapping terrible flavors. All the nasty bitter tails crap seemed to be sucked into the pores. I was not able to "wash" these off flavors out.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:33 pm
by shadylane
Even though I use the column for stripping runs.
I haven't had a problem with tails hiding in packing.
My thinking is reflux does a good job rinsing the packing before hearts start.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2022 5:36 am
by Windy City
shadylane wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:33 pm
Even though I use the column for stripping runs.
I haven't had a problem with tails hiding in packing.
My thinking is reflux does a good job rinsing the packing before hearts start.
I agree Shady
Between the fores and the heads "washing down" your packing while the column is held in equilibrium at the beginning of the run. I have never had a problem with tails coming through until they were due at the end of a run.
shadylane wrote: ↑Mon Nov 14, 2022 11:33 pm
Even though I use the column for stripping runs.
I haven't had a problem with tails hiding in packing.
My thinking is reflux does a good job rinsing the packing before hearts start.
I agree Shady
Between the fores and the heads "washing down" your packing while the column is held in equilibrium at the beginning of the run. I have never had a problem with tails coming through until they were due at the end of a run.
there was just terrible "flavors" trapped in the ceramic media that didn't make tails come through earlier, just tainted the flavor of the hearts enough that I could notice. I tried a bunch of different things to "wash" the media. In the end I got better results with copper mesh so I didn't really worry too much.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2023 9:10 pm
by shadylane
I prefer ceramic media over copper mesh.
Ceramics doesn't corrode or pack down.
If someone had the patience.
Splitting the ceramic rings in half could make it better.
Doing a 5 gallon bucket full could take a little bit of time.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Mon May 01, 2023 3:43 am
by higgins
I've been using the AquaCity ceramic filter media in my 2" x 36" column for a couple of years now.
filter media.png (99.99 KiB) Viewed 1928 times
I was not quite hitting Azeo (maybe 94%), so I decided to crush the media so it would be smaller and allow me to get more in the column. I just used a hammer to break them into 2-3 pieces each - didn't take long at all. Of course, this is a 2" column so I'm only using about 4 lbs of media.
I was able to get about 10-15% more media in the same column space, and I did get an ABV boost. I'll need to add another 6" spool to the column if I want to get all the way to Azeo.
Edited: I clicked submit instead of preview. I wanted to add that I have not noticed any trapping of tails in the ceramic, but then again I only do 2 or 3 neutral runs a year.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Tue May 02, 2023 6:32 am
by Windy City
I know this topic is ceramic rings meant for a aquarium, but I would like to emphasize Siporax is not ceramic.
I posted this in another thread but felt the info should be added here.
Siporax is actually a sintered glass that has larger pores than ceramic and the pores are connected.
a real interesting explanation is here https://www.sera.de/us/service/info/how ... orax-work/
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Tue May 02, 2023 12:59 pm
by Saltbush Bill
Thanks Windy I've been wondering exactly what the difference was.....or if there was one at all.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Tue May 02, 2023 1:15 pm
by Yummyrum
Same , thanks Windy . We used Sintered glass crucibles at work for filtering stuff with a vacuum pump and I always wondered how the hell do you sinter glass powder and end up with holes through it …..Salt …. Makes sense now
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Tue May 02, 2023 8:51 pm
by shadylane
Learned something new, I wondered how they made sintered glass.
The rings I'm using looks like the keramik example and isn't as porous.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Wed May 03, 2023 2:50 am
by Windy City
I found it interesting after reading that link that if you put one end in your mouth and put your finger on the other end you can blow through it. It is designed so water can flow through it which makes me think that would only help for our use.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Wed May 03, 2023 7:06 am
by tiramisu
Silly question, I see people changing their packing around for different thing.
What I don't quite understand is why.
If you are getting good reflux with a why switch to b?
SPP, lava rock, rashing rings, copper mesh, steel mesh, scrubbies, bubble plates.
Am I missing something?
Don't get me wrong I love copper and bubble plates because "magic" but what is driving people
to go through so many different packing materials for reflux?
thanks,
t
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Wed May 03, 2023 1:17 pm
by Yummyrum
tiramisu , I guess folk like to experiment and are always hopeful that the next packing material will be better than the one they have .
Better packing means you can take off product at a quicker rate . Who doesn’t want that ?
Having said that . I know SPP would be better than the scrubbers I use but I can’t justify the extra cost .
Like you say , I’m happy enough with what I get .
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Wed May 03, 2023 2:04 pm
by shadylane
I'd love to try using SPP.
Anyone have a 5 gallon bucket full I can have for cheap.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Wed May 03, 2023 6:09 pm
by Saltbush Bill
I'm not so sure about SPP, for every post Ive ever read started by happy SP users, Ive read another 2 posts by those who seem to be having problems with the stuff.
Personally I think I'll stick to the dirty old structured copper mesh Ive used successfully for years.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Thu May 04, 2023 3:06 pm
by OtisT
tiramisu wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 7:06 am
Silly question, I see people changing their packing around for different thing.
What I don't quite understand is why.
If you are getting good reflux with a why switch to b?
SPP, lava rock, rashing rings, copper mesh, steel mesh, scrubbies, bubble plates.
Am I missing something?
Don't get me wrong I love copper and bubble plates because "magic" but what is driving people
to go through so many different packing materials for reflux?
thanks,
t
Hi t. Obviously I can’t speak for why other people try different packing types, but I can share why I have done it.
In summary, my reasons have been curiosity, opportunity, availability, and cost. I feel that the cost reason was unjustified in the end.
I started with copper mesh in my first 2” column because I had read that was a great packing solution and it was cheep enough, only needing one pound for a 36” section of packing. Mesh has a good HEPT and it was copper to boot.
When I built my first 3” column, I tried a short section with copper mesh and it worked fine, but when I made it longer and needed more packing, I wanted to try something different so I chose small ceramic rings. Those worked great and I learned a lot about how the thermal mass of packing impacts driving my column. All was good and when I did runs in my tallest configuration I used both rings and mesh.
When I built my first 4” column I was trying to save money and decided to try rocks. Rocks are cheep here. That was a hell of a lot of work, getting and grading rocks. I spent way more time grading and cleaning rocks than I wanted, then more time running the different grades to compare results. I made them work.
Something ruined my rocks and I needed to replace my packing. I did not want to go through the work of rocks again, so I paid a bit more and am now going to be using Siporax based on some positive comments about the media from folks like Windy City and others.
In general I am happy with the results I have gotten from each of the materials I have used. I am not chasing azeo or a faster takeoff and I was happy with my 92% to 94% neutral using rocks, given my height limitations. Don’t get me wrong, I want to get the best separation, fastest production rate and highest ABV I can with what I have available, but I’m not replacing media to find the best possible media that is available.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Thu May 04, 2023 8:19 pm
by Windy City
Hey tiramisu
My opinion on why people keep trying different packing is that many people are trying to get the best performance from their still. Even if it is from a still that is producing 95% to increasing to 95.6%
In the beginning those chasing Azeo distillers were using Nixon offset heads and then moved to Bokakobs. While some were happy with that others wanted to increase their performance (ABV/production rate) and moved to other still designs such as CCVM. I think many of us that have been experimenting with packaging are doing so because our limitations of height of our columns and trying to get the best performance for that height. SPP is supposedly the holy grail of packing but is stupid expensive and most readily available SPP is too small for a 4” column. Therefore the experiments of other packing materials.
Your question is really not just about packing for stills but stills in general.
Why does a pot stiller dream of a big plater or a rummy dream of a double retort. While I know that statement is not an absolute but it is a common theme. I believe that most of us are just wanting to do better, and sometimes better equipment (and a bunch of knowledge/experience) is a way to achieve that goal.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Sun May 07, 2023 7:18 pm
by shadylane
Long story short, folks here like to experiment with different packing and equipment.
Even though it's often easier and better to just run it again with what we already have.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2023 7:08 pm
by Jabman
I tought I read all messages, and didn't notice no one talked about ceramic balls? Would they be better than rings? At least bioceramax make balls and rings, and claims that balls have larger surface contact than rings. Im the guy who wants to go with balls.
This video shows what they look like, didn't listen what he/she talks about.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2023 7:09 pm
by Jabman
Jabman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 7:08 pm
I tought I read all messages, and didn't notice no one talked about ceramic balls? Would they be better than rings? At least aquael make balls and rings, and claims that balls have larger surface contact than rings. Im the guy who wants to go with balls.
This video shows what they look like, didn't listen what he/she talks about.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2023 7:17 pm
by shadylane
I think the rings on the right side of the pic, the ones with the big inner diameter would work the best.
Ball shaped, random packing will work, but it's rare to see it being used or for sale commercially.
In all my testing, ceramic rings are absolute shit. Don't waste your money. They produce lower % ABV and cause the column to flood. Copper mesh and scrubbers work better. Lava Rock works MUCH better than copper mesh and far better than scrubbers. Lava Rock is also less expensive.
Re: ceramic rings meant for using in an aquarium
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2023 11:13 pm
by shadylane
Salt Must Flow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 8:37 pm
In all my testing, ceramic rings are absolute shit. Don't waste your money. They produce lower % ABV and cause the column to flood.
I disagree.
Ceramic rings may not be the best.
But it's less likely to flood than most other options.
Reflux can easily drain without getting in the way of rising vapor.
Ceramic packing doesn't deteriorate, change or pack down over time.
Copper mesh and SS scrubbies are variable depending on the shape, size and how tight it's packed.
Copper mesh could be considered consumable, since it turns black and vanishes with time.
Scoria is variable in its chemical make-up, shape, size, and durability while being used.
Depending on its source, I'm also not completely convinced of its safety for distilling.
Plan B
If your column isn't tall and filled with the best packing money can buy.
Dilute the alcohol and redistill.
Salt Must Flow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 8:37 pm
In all my testing, ceramic rings are absolute shit. Don't waste your money. They produce lower % ABV and cause the column to flood.
I disagree.
Ceramic rings may not be the best.
But it's less likely to flood than most other options.
Reflux can easily drain without getting in the way of rising vapor.
Ceramic packing doesn't deteriorate, change or pack down over time.
Copper mesh and SS scrubbies are variable depending on the shape, size and how tight it's packed.
Copper mesh could be considered consumable, since it turns black and vanishes with time.
Scoria is variable in its chemical make-up, shape, size, and durability while being used.
Depending on its source, I'm also not completely convinced of its safety for distilling.
Plan B
If your column isn't tall and filled with the best packing money can buy.
Dilute the alcohol and redistill.
I'll be starting a couple of large sugar washes very soon. I will repeat the testing of the ceramic rings to compare with my previous test results. If there's any specific testing anyone wants done, speak up. I plan to start at low power, stabilize the column, take-off at different rates and test the % ABV. Step up the power and repeat.
Years ago I couldn't believe how poorly ceramic packing performed that I even bought a stethoscope so I could better hear what was going on inside the column and detect signs of flooding before it was visible at the top of the column. Ever since I started using properly sized Lava Rock, I haven't needed the stethoscope at all. Zero hint of flooding or even signs of flooding. Just for fun, I tried a smaller size of Lava Rock and it flooded consistently. Proper sizing is important, easy to sieve to size and Lava Rock is not at all finicky to use. When operating at very low power it produces 95%+ ABV. At higher to normal operating rage it always produces 95%+ ABV. I've tested stabilizing my column at ridiculously high power, way higher than I would ever operate at and it just doesn't flood. I've even stripped with reflux at 5500W and zero flooding.
You are correct, copper and scrubbers are not all created equal. Some are made of finer ribbons and some are made of coarser ribbons. I've tried both with copper and SS scrubbers. I only ever use approx 4 rolls of copper mesh at the base of the column and I pour my packing over top. SS scrubbers are very finicky as to how tight or loose they are packed. Even slightly too tight and it will flood. Even slightly too loose and it will produce lower % ABV. Getting it 'just right' is not worth my time or effort anymore because I've exhausted all reasonable options to do so.
I've seen no signs of degradation with the Lava Rock I've used. I've tested boiling it with high amounts of Citric Acid and boiling with high amounts of Sodium Carbonate. The boiler is crystal clear after every run and only some fine crumbs left behind which is common with solid random packing.
