Continuous distillation flute?

[guittarmaster]

Here is a quick little sketch of how I'ld tackle this design challenge. The first way with twin columns would just be me modifying what I already have. The second would be a sort of 2" flute like what usge is working on in the flute mark2 thread. Personally I'ld attach this on top of 2.5 or 5gal boiler filled half way up. The little "column looking thing" on the bottom right is one of those sight-glasses that you see on the side of a coffee pot to let you know how full it is, so you know when to discharge boiler contents. Mash would be ran through the delph and condenser to eliminate any heat loss by just using it to warm the incoming mash (if i understand the coffer design correctly... we didn't study continuos still in my chem classes.)

or pdf

continous_columns.pdf

(33.72 KiB) Downloaded 335 times

Also note that the "product condenser is just to condense your methanol and heads. The plate closest to the delph is the spirit plate and taking off this the still acts like an LM booka. ( I would think )

Just my 2cents on it. Also, thanks for explanation. I'll have to keep up on this thread.

GM

[heartcut]

Nice designs, guitarmaster. A suggestion would be to use the outgoing boiler contents to warm your incoming charge, too. This is a cool thread.

[guittarmaster]

Nice designs, guitarmaster. A suggestion would be to use the outgoing boiler contents to warm your incoming charge, too. This is a cool thread.

I am, this design uses mash for incoming coolant for the shotgun Liebig and the delphometer. There they absorb the heat from condensation and are delivered to a plate to start evaporation or to drip through the downcommer and go to the boiler and start there.

GM

[LWTCS]

I like both designs but I particularly like the twin column.

Seems to me that the twin's temp gradient would remain more stable by returning reflux to the first column section.

Also,,,,,I know I beat this dead horse all the time,,,,but I also much prefer not returning one drop of reflux to the bulk amount of water within the primary boiler....

[Pelson]

Waaw! This thread is going way to quick! Just been out for two days (had some exam to do) and allready this much progress!

First of all: GM; I don't quite understand what their doing in the youtube-thing you posted. And how could one ever make this small scale?
Also: what you thought about the energy-loss or -gain... I was thinking the same... eventually you have to heat everything up till boiling point... But as I read what Sterlingchap told... mhh.. still a little bit confused.

Anyhow: I also was thinking of putting the mash through the condensors by gravity... however, then all the tubing must be wide enough to allow for easy flow of the mash and also: the more mash has run through, the slower it'll flow (less force because you're tank runs empty) So that could give some problems whit cooling...

I like the designs a lot, but I was wondering: you heat up the mash in the boiler to start everything up, and then after a while you just discard of the excess of mash... It's a logical thing, and looks really good, but when you think of going 'greener' I'm not convinced this is the way. You still have to heat everything up, and you discard of hot liquid... maybe a heat-exchanger placed somewhere in between would be nice

How many plates should be introduced?
Also, wouldn't we just get pure clean neutrals? I mean, if you make a kinda stripper, then you can't really expect the flavours to not be stripped off... no?
Really like the design though (man, i should be studying!)

However I think it'll still take lots of effort to calculate and measure everything!

[mash rookie]

Here are my KISS (keep it simple st….) design thoughts for a continuous Whiskey still. Not pre heating, not recycling coolant, not trying for nuetral.

The speed at witch you remove spent wash and temperature will determine how much you wring out of the wash and how much tails are going up.

Using the dephlag to control the exact temperature in the heads chamber should keep hearts down and allow heads out.

[rad14701]

mash rookie, I like the idea of automatic flow control that you've incorporated... That would definitely help in eliminating run-dry situations...

[mash rookie]

It would not be that difficult to add an electrical cut out switch to the float mechanism.
At the end of a run when the level drops below a certain point it would shut off the element.


When we run our batch runs, everything is constantly changing. Temperatures rise and fall as the wash first gives off the heads then the hearts are depleted and tails become present. This requires a lot of learning, practice and the careful attention we give to it.

In continuous distillation things would be constant. Wash ABV, power necessary to boil, heads and hearts always present in their beginning percentages.
Once dialed in on the amount of power and the amount of coolant for heads separation, It should run indefinitely at the same settings without change.

[guittarmaster]

A First of all: GM; I don't quite understand what their doing in the youtube-thing you posted. And how could one ever make this small scale?
B Also: what you thought about the energy-loss or -gain... I was thinking the same... eventually you have to heat everything up till boiling point... But as I read what Sterlingchap told... mhh.. still a little bit confused.

C Anyhow: I also was thinking of putting the mash through the condensors by gravity... however, then all the tubing must be wide enough to allow for easy flow of the mash and also: the more mash has run through, the slower it'll flow (less force because you're tank runs empty) So that could give some problems whit cooling...

I like the designs a lot, but I was wondering: D you heat up the mash in the boiler to start everything up, and then after a while you just discard of the excess of mash... It's a logical thing, and looks really good, but when you think of going 'greener' I'm not convinced this is the way. You still have to heat everything up, and you discard of hot liquid... maybe a heat-exchanger placed somewhere in between would be nice

E How many plates should be introduced?
F Also, wouldn't we just get pure clean neutrals? I mean, if you make a kinda stripper, then you can't really expect the flavours to not be stripped off... no?
Really like the design though (man, i should be studying!)

However I think it'll still take lots of effort to calculate and measure everything!

A I believe those plates in the youtube video work like hybrid riveted perforated plates and bubble caps Instead of using traditional downcommers like in all of our previous designs, it uses steam injected in the bottom of the column.
warning, therotical and possibly dangerous idea follows.... AKA a fun one

For our purposes we COULD recreate something like this. EG: small pot with water. the steam heat would heat up the heat source. The plates would be a hybrid of the rivited plates like those in Banjos iFlute - 3" build.... and bubble caps.http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 0#p6906518
with a drain system for when you turn the steam off. Really though, I saw that video a long time ago and have waiting for an opportunity to post it. It would either be wAAAAAY too complicated to ever build and not be worth it, or be amazing.... I just wish i was a copper-wizzard like some of the other members and could test it out... maybe later.

B my initial thoughts on the topic, but it's certainly not less efficient the a typical batch still

C gravity will work only as long as you have a higher place to put the bash bucket. Also I would think the rate of delivering mash to the column would be related to the heat source and not offsetting the equilibrium within the column.
** make sure however you do it you are able to switch over to water when you are finished with the last bit of mash or switch buckets.

D You would make a reverse worm and use a pump to feed the spent hot mash through it. OR, use a pump to feed mash through the delph and condenser and make the spent 'boiler out' waist go through the mash bucker via a worm... but them you would have hot mash being driven into your delph and condenser.

E I think from the flute talk thread 5 is a good number if you want to go whiskey, more for neutral.

Fdepends on the design of the still.


hope that helps.

[Pelson]

Thanks for the info.

I get it now, about the little movie. Would be nice to introduce such a system with rivets. But how the f 'll you gonna make it small scale?
Even: how the f does it work? It has to be able to let the gas through, by overpressure from undernied, but as to let the liquids out when there's no pressure...
AND it has to hold the liquid that falls on top of it during "empty-ing" of the plate.......

Very interesting and dangerous indeed...


Sad enough I don't have the funds (nor time: stupid exams) to try and build and experiment with a continious thing like this on my own, but I really like to think along.

(although there won't be many new ideas coming from me... I barely started understanding all of the flute-stuff... but we're working on that! )

[Bagasso]

In regards to fores/heads why not just run a double continuous still but feed the bottom of the first column to the bottom of the second.

Each column would have it's own heat source. You feed wash into the middle of the first column and run it so that the fores and heads get past the packing while hearts, tails and water get refluxed.These would collect at the bottom fores/heads free and would then be fed into the second column which would be a flute or packed column depending on what you want to make. No more fores/heads flowing through the take off section of a single column set-up.

How the first columnn is run would control the amount of heads that may creep through since some do like to keep a bit of the late heads.

[airhill]

Apparently they wish to make a slightly contaminated product output
So its half packed on the first column to mostly up hetp then a plated column (with an inefficient CM condenser to off heads slowly) feeding the top plate to the reboiler on the second column with plates. the first is supplied into a second column (reheated at the bottom) at the plate level required and the output is taken from the plate level required above it. The second column uses an inefficient CM condenser to off heads slowly and the bottom of the second is fed back to halfway up the first by a pump.
Had a few but got to love it

[sterlingchap]

From an energy perspective the key issues aren't that difficult.....look only at the essential ingredient of a still:

A Vapour Producer Unit.
Energy is withdrawn from this unit only via heat contained in Product, Feedstock effluent and heat transport effluent (condensed steam which has fallen to the bottom of the exchanger). For the moment, at least, we'll declare that there are no parasitic losses to the environment via the tube walls etc. The heat is provided by a feed of steam at ambient pressure, at 100C. This steam is produced at 100% efficiency (for convenience) by an electric steam generator.

Let's consider the energy required to produce 55% ABW vapour continuously from a 10% wash:-
We will apply steam (at 100C) to the bottom of our Vapour Producer Unit, and feed in 10% wash at some point above that steam feed. There is packing with a large surface area to facilitate energy transfer from the rising steam to the falling wash resulting in rising Product Vapour.

First we need to heat the wash feed up, from room temp (say 20C) to the boiling point of the wash (say 93C)
The energy needed to bring the wash to 93C is about 292 Joules per gram. = 1 (Mass) x 4.0 (Specific Heat of the wash) x 73 (temp differential)

18% of the original wash mass forms our 55% ABW vapour product.
The energy needed to convert this to vapour is about 268 Joules per 0.18grams of 55% ABW. = 0.18 (Mass) x 1487 (Latent Heat of Vapourisation of the Product)

So the total energy required to produce 0.18g of 55% ABW vapour is 560 Joules. Per second.
268 Joules exists as energy contained in the 0.18g of vapour we've produced (it's hot!) which we take off as Product.
292 Joules is discarded as heat in the wash waste. This is just part of the total waste liquid removed.
The other liquid waste component is the condensed steam (it will be at close to 100C) we used to carry the required heat INTO the Unit.
We needed 560 Joules to produce the Product and its associated effluent. That's the energy contained in about 0.25g of steam at 100C, at ambient pressure. Per second.
When condensed this 0.25G of hot water represents 0.25 x 4.2 (SH water) x 80 (Temp differential) = 84 Joules. Per second.

Heat Energy taken out as Product = 268 Joules
Heat energy taken out as spent wash = 292 Joules
Heat Energy taken out as hot water from steam feed = 84 Joules.

Total Power used = 644 Joules per second (Watts)
Power discarded as waste heat = 376 Watts
Heat efficiency = 41.6% overall

Now let's calculate actual throughput with respect to a standard (say 1KW) available heat input:-
We saw above that we can make 0.18g of 55% ABW per 644 watts of available heating.
That's 0.28g per KW,
Or about 0.31 mls per second, expressed as condensed Product
18 mls per minute,
About a litre an hour.

In an hour, about 5.5 Litres of 10% wash (a gallon+) will be processed, with no long, tiresome big-pot warm-up delays; and all for a mere 1KW heat source.
Attractive...... VERY attractive.
Particularly when I consider that my own heat source (a steam generator) has precise control from about 0.25 to 2KW..... every hour I choose - with little initiation time - I can potentially process 11 litres of wash to produce 2 litres of better-than-Scotch alcohol content nectar!
"This is not the end; it is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the Beginning" - Winston Churchill 1940.

An important aspect of this viewpoint is that there is little difference in the energy requirement for 95% Product if that is preferred. All we need is a fractionating column of suitable effectiveness and low parasitic losses.
[Whatever process (batch or continuous) we elect to generate our desired concentration of vapour, we of course throw away the heat of vapourisation it contains when we finally condense it.]
Note that introducing any form of reflux, though, will have a disastrous effect on thermal efficiency because a reflux condenser essentially condenses vapour and throws away the latent heat of vapourisation released by that process from within our system; and all of it needs to be replaced with extra heat input to maintain the desired amount of output vapour. The batch distillation supporters might, from their practiced art, find that an acceptable norm.
But efficient, it is NOT.
NB: that is not to assert conclusively, yet, that a practical and more efficient continuous distillation goal with zero reflux is achievable.
But it sure makes an attractive, interesting target for ongoing discussion and debate........

Chap

[airhill]

Ok you just described a continuous potstill with no way of removing heads or making cuts.
And I know you are discounting parasitic losses but I very much doubt that using wet steam will give you the efficiencies you calculate (this is just a guess as I am hopeless at math) .

[azeo]

Founds some more interesting links. just c+p'ing with to help the topic, add to the interest etc.

http://www.demeraradistillers.com/our-h ... the-stills

The Wooden Continuous Coffey or EHP Wooden Still is the last fully working example of its kind in the world today. It is similar, if not identical, to the very first continuous still constructed and patented by an Irish excise officer, Aeneas Coffey in 1832, after whom the Still was named.

From the parent site; not sure if it's been referred to already

http://homedistiller.org/cont.htm

I've finally got around to making a continuous still. Its very easy to convert your existing column - all you need is a small (1-2L) boiler - eg an old electric kettle.
This would be a great tool to use for stripping down large quantities of wash, to say 85-90% purity, for redistilling the regular way. Eg 200 L of wash at 12%, if stripped at 85% purity, would give 28 L. Redistilling this would then give you the confidence that any heads and tails have been completely removed.

I'd also really reccommend downloading and reading the textbook excerpt I posted for those that haven't already, there's good information to pull out.

For those thinking of making a continuous setup, I'd reccommend making a stripping column first (or a tall column that includes rectification), so that reboiler, feed and control/reflux mechanisms and issues can be sorted. If it's relatively easy to add in fractionation ports and reflux control though, go for it!

A good basis for experimentation could be those coffee and beverage machines which include a small boiler, float switches, safety switches, solid state relays, electric feed valves etc. I have a scrapped one at work which looks ideal for some experimentation to get the feel for the practicalities.

Still Spirits marketed a small continuous still for a while, but I feel it may well have suffered in practice of not being able to separate heads and foreshots properly or easily in a single column, because even if a "plate" is drawn from at azeotropic temperature, lower boiling point compounds are still passing through, and forming a proportion of the condensed liquid, which is why multiple column systems are used, to achieve fraction separation, as well as reduce height and provide mechanisms for bottoms draw.

It really seems to make sense to strip larger quantities of mash in a continuous still, saving on heating larger pot volumes with associated problems for home distiling, while retaining all possible flavours for secondary distilling, or just low wines for neutral spirits runs. Seems to be some good interesting calcs coming out of this too, especially too as on "fuel" forums there's been discussion recently of similar economics of distilling suitable grades of in effect, neutral spirit, Many parallels to draw.. it still comes down to kW/L/Hr, btu/gall/hr etc, safety and convenience, plus just good ol technical curiosity laced with, if the big boys can do it, why can't we?

[sterlingchap]

Ok you just described a continuous potstill with no way of removing heads or making cuts.
And I know you are discounting parasitic losses but I very much doubt that using wet steam will give you the efficiencies you calculate (this is just a guess as I am hopeless at math) .

Thanks for reading, you're almost there but not quite:
I did not describe a still; pot, continuous or otherwise.
I described the thermal characteristics of a 55% alcohol Vapour Producer Unit which might be considered as a component part of a continuous still. There is no suggestion that it might in any way manage heads removal.
The steam input into the system is not mist (water droplets). It is steam. A gas. Which is dry.
There is no mystery involved in the somewhat idealised proposal. The energy of the materials taken out of the system must always equal the energy put into it. It is by no means unusual in such systems that maintenance of Nature's essential energy balance involves both phase and temperature changes.

The point of the post was to show that regardless of the method chosen to remove undesirable contaminants in another, later, component unit, there is essentially no scientific or logical difficulty in opting for batch or continuous vapour production within a still design.
It may be that it is impossible to design an extra unit capable of removing "heads" continuously (though Life is littered with the defeat of similar, apparent impossibilities!)
But we're not discussing subsequent purification of the vapour produced by this unit.... yet.

If it helps, I chose "55%" alcohol vapour merely because that is generally accepted as approximately the acohol vapour concentration that you'd get via a single boil (no fractionator, no reflux) in a simple pot still using a 10% alcohol wash feedstock. It serves only to provide a guide to the way that heat input (from the steam) is transferred to the output. It may, in fact, be that a practical application of the idea will produce a different strength entirely. In fact it almost certainly will! [The packing and feed points will have to be carefully designed to avoid fractionating effects, if higher concentration of alcohol in the vapour is considered undesirable. That will be important if the ultimate goal is flavoured distillate rather than "neutrals".]
BUT, whatever the concentration of actual output and effluents, the energy balance of the unit WILL be maintained and if there is only one energy input (steam) it will be a trivial excercise to accurately measure it.
The energy content and mass of the vapour flow produced will be an important consideration for any/all units which we may add later.
Hope that helps.
Chap

[sterlingchap]

I think you just might be right with that azeo (use continuous for stripping and pot for "refining"), but I hope not!
If that is the ONLY way ultimately, we'll discover that fact by failing to come up with a method for removing undesirable components (e.g. "heads") on a continuous basis. From a standardised, repeatable, well-defined vapour stream along the lines of my example.

Except........ that my scientific/technocrat gut tells me that this is no "insurmountable problem" - even at the domestic-user level.
Despite the misguided assertions of some, I see plenty of evidence that at least some posters herein have the collective scientific knowledge and practical capability to reach the "continuous" goal.
Whether or not it's attractive enough to adopt at that stage, or if it is attractive to everyone, is not the point of debate and discussion. Those who loathe "continuous" should refrain from disparaging the discussions of we who simply suspect it just might be achievable. When or if we get "there" they are entitled to decline it as an alternative route for themselves.
But NOT for everyone else!
Chap

[guittarmaster]

I

I think you just might be right with that azeo (use continuous for stripping and pot for "refining"), but I hope not!
If that is the ONLY way ultimately, we'll discover that fact by failing to come up with a method for removing undesirable components (e.g. "heads") on a continuous basis. From a standardised, repeatable, well-defined vapour stream along the lines of my example.

Except........ that my scientific/technocrat gut tells me that this is no "insurmountable problem" - even at the domestic-user level.
Despite the misguided assertions of some, I see plenty of evidence that at least some posters herein have the collective scientific knowledge and practical capability to reach the "continuous" goal.
Whether or not it's attractive enough to adopt at that stage, or if it is attractive to everyone, is not the point of debate and discussion. Those who loathe "continuous" should refrain from disparaging the discussions of we who simply suspect it just might be achievable. When or if we get "there" they are entitled to decline it as an alternative route for themselves.
But NOT for everyone else!
Chap

I"ve seen thsoe videos that were posted before. Very interesting. I'm left wondering it perhaps the scale i was thinking in was too small. How much mash do you think there needs to be before becoming noticeably more efficient (unannounced visitors aside) ? I mean, If you can strip a 2.5 gallon batch in under 45 min (atleast i could on my stove before stepping up to keg boiler). It seems like there would be a bit of a delay for everything to reach equilibrium and be up and running, just like any other still.

Another possible direction I see this evolving into is just a very quick way to strip a large amount of mash without any cuts for a spirit run. I'm sure it was said before you if You are just saving up runns of UJSSM for a 2nd distillation you wait to make cuts and the 2nd. I see no problem if a hobby sized continuous still can't make cuts effectively because you can make those cuts later. I agree that this is hopefully not the case but consider how long it takes to fill a 5gallon oak barrel....

IF you stripped down 55 gal of 10% mash that should fit nicely inside a 15 gallon keg for 2nd run...... which should fit nicely inside a 5gallon barrel for ageing!! Two days of distilling... Let it air out.. In three or four days your ready to fill your 5gallon oak barrel.

I"m down, but will be a while before I'm able to start building. Did anybody download those planns or have something more modern than the coffey still?

GM

[myles]

OK sterlingchap I may have missed it in the long posts but is there any energy advantage over the entire duration of the run? In comparison to heating the entire pot how much energy is saved by the continuous method. I couldn't give a monkeys about the time saving. I am running a small batch process and trying to make a superior quality product. I don't want to fill a wharehouse.

Is this any better than the simple and traditional method of running 2 or 3 smaller batches and using the condenser to prewarm the next batch.

Oh of course it is called a Charentais still isnt it. Seems to me to be a much easier solution than farting about with a continuous still.

[LWTCS]

Distilling is a great example of how economy of scale can be helpful. And likewise,,,no scale,,,,no economy.......And we already know the continuous apparatus is not going to make a superior drop on its own accord.

[olddog]

When looking at the concept of a continual still I have to ask myself a few questions.

1 Could I build one, Yes
2 Do I want to build one, No
3 Would it be an advantage to have one, No I can already achieve the proof and flavor with my Flute designs with a single run.

My washes never exceed 30 litres so continuous distillation is not required, and the energy required to create the steam would not be much different to the energy required to boil my wash.
So the chance of me building this type of still are dead in the water.

End of arguement.


OD

[blind drunk]

We all know you can build one olddog ... not sure about sterlingchap though ... lot of talk and numbers so far Not that I could either, mind you

[azeo]

It may be that it is impossible to design an extra unit capable of removing "heads" continuously (though Life is littered with the defeat of similar, apparent impossibilities!)

It certainly is possible, and in the industry this is where multiple column sytems are used, such as using a "demthyliser" (spelling may not be right ) after a rectifier, where the "bottoms draw" is ethanol, instead of stripped wash, or even a 4th column for pharmaceuticle grade purity.

As olddog says/implies, at our scale it's a technical personal choice of curiosity more than anything else, but may it just be a handy facility if one can easily attach an existing column with a few extra fittings to a reboiler, or small still, to help process a largeish amount of spoilable fruit etc that may fall on ones' doorstep, and the fermentor capacity is avalable, but not the boiler capacity. The challenge of designing a simple, practical, *workable* scaled version seems a worthwhile pursuit too though, for those wishing to take it up. It does extend our hobby capabilities, and one may well even find in some sort of "fuel crisis", it may come in handy!

I'd reccommmend chasing up Alex's plans/instructions (referred to previously) as well, although opinions vary, and I haven't worked them out yet enough myself (time issues at his stage) to give an opinion (which would only be an opinion anyway!) they could make a very good starting point for further development, or end point, or ideas to add to ones here, or simplification etc. and the $ are reasonable ... I only get a small comission for referrals... ark ark But he's in the same neck of the woods and been affected by the aerthquakes so I don't mind giving him a "plug" and seems a decent guy, quite helpful and friendly, and clever too I think, esp as he seems to have done this all from his own experience in the trade. (I'm not associated in any way btw..) plug off...

it'll be interesting to see how this goes, and how any practical work pans out

[sterlingchap]

Another good post!
Such open minds usually succeed in seeing the light through the trees azeo.
I think most would agree that "tails" are much less, or not even, a problem at all.
So, focussing on "heads":

..... but the unwary or foolhardy should beware the dangers in experimenting without prior education of the crucial safety aspects involved, first:-

Suppose you left them in the distillate from a continuous still.
Put your distillate (batchwise for prototyping) into a warmable container, in a well-ventillated flameless, sparkproof area, to which you can apply vacuum. Then "draw out" and vent the low-boiling nasties with vacuum, until the vent stream (sniff it?) is clear (i.e. alcohol), and bingo!
Job done!
The degree to which traces of low-boiling stuff can be easily removed with vacuum should not be underestimated: I have in the past professionally removed really dangerous stuff (e.g. diethyl ether, flash point -40C) from materials this way. Safely, with proper planning and care.
A little acetone, acetaldehyde and various low-boiling unwanted azeotropic mixtures shouldn't present any real problems!

Chap

[sterlingchap]

OK sterlingchap I may have missed it in the long posts but is there any energy advantage over the entire duration of the run? In comparison to heating the entire pot how much energy is saved by the continuous method. I couldn't give a monkeys about the time saving. I am running a small batch process and trying to make a superior quality product. I don't want to fill a wharehouse.

Is this any better than the simple and traditional method of running 2 or 3 smaller batches and using the condenser to prewarm the next batch.

Oh of course it is called a Charentais still isnt it. Seems to me to be a much easier solution than farting about with a continuous still.

OK, I'll indulge....with some vision:

For me, the purpose in exploring the possibility of "continuous" is that if it can be made a viable alternative strategy it potentially permits the size and cost of home-scale production of spirits (flavoured and/or neutrals) to be dramatically downsized. Especially for those who cannot, for space and/or safety reasons, contemplate what the majority might consider a "normal sized" still. Those who live in apartments, for example.
I also forsee continuous as potentially "smaller and safer".
I'd feel much more comfortable with there only being a few millilitres of wash at the boil at any one time, with a very small heater and very small total heat capacity, for example.
None of that is certain... that is the reason behind exploratory discussion here.

Overall, a parallel might be the development of computers: Big, bulky, batch-oriented, inefficient and hard-to-manage except by experts at first.
Then they were "consumerised"; made easy-to-use; "always on" doing productive work for the owner and drawing minimal power to do it.

As a general guide, my rough calculations so far have shown that a litre of 80 Proof costs about a kilowatt-hour of energy and about $1 in materials to produce. That would last me at least a week!
I consider there to be no Rule which demands that my own litre must be made all in one go, batchwise. I might personally prefer the prospect of a micro-still, running off a wall adapter and drawing a mere 40Watts, one whole day a week, instead. Or even just 7 watts running continuously to refill my stock at the same rate I drink it? - Now THAT is more like consumer-affordable and consumer-useable!
Such thought might eventually lead to a viable still the size of a laptop computer and be much, much more user-friendly.

I appreciate that such thoughts might not be "popular" with the "black art preservationist" element, but nevertheless I feel that they have a place here. Even if the traditionalist camp stay away from the discussion. We can read - value and appreciate- their historic contributions.
It's just that some of us feel that the future just might involve a slight course correction.
Might not.
We don't know yet!
Chap

[olddog]

Stirling Chap, I note that you have reported my post

Re: Continuous distillation flute?
by olddog » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:15 am
When looking at the concept of a continual still I have to ask myself a few questions.1 Could I build one, Yes2 Do I want to build one, No3 Would it be an advantage to have one, No I can already achieve the proof and flavor with my Flute designs with a single run.My washes never exceed 30 litres so continuous distillation is not required, and the energy required to create the steam would not be much different to the energy required to boil my wash.So the chance of me building this type of still are dead in the water.End of arguement.

And Blind drunks post

Re: Continuous distillation flute?
by blind drunk » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:48 am
We all know you can build one olddog ... not sure about sterlingchap though ... lot of talk and numbers so far Not that I could either, mind you

as being Off Topic, neither are, they just do not agree with your thinking.
As a moderator it is my job to deal and handle reports such as this, but this time I will leave them for all to see what an opinionated person you are.

BTW If you think your smart enough, why don't you design and build a continuous still.
Lets see you put your money where your mouth is.


OD

[blanikdog]

Another good post!

Well said OD.

[frozenthunderbolt]

Otherwise one *COULD* offset the energy and water usage of a hobby still by simply filling up the bathtub with the discharge water from the delph and condenser. Throw some bubbles in it and let the misses enjoy herself!! LOL I mean, you gotta clean up sometime ... when I ran my 2.5 gallon pot still I distilled in the kitchen and collected the discharged hot water into the sink and washed the dishes in in!

GM

I do. This is the reason my still is put up with - a guilt free hot bath! + additional water goes into the washing machine, kitchen sink, to wash out bottles to store hooch and to water the garden!

[The Baker]

To be honest I have only a very limited understanding of all this; but what excites me is to see people with theoretical knowledge, and those with outstanding practical knowledge and technical ability, kicking around new ideas, and new ways to use old ideas on a hobby scale.

When you get people with differing points of view this can create controversy so I hope if you feel you must disagree it is not done disagreeably, just at the time when I think this could bring interesting results.

[mash rookie]

To be honest I have only a very limited understanding of all this; but what excites me is to see people with theoretical knowledge, and those with outstanding practical knowledge and technical ability, kicking around new ideas, and new ways to use old ideas on a hobby scale.

When you get people with differing points of view this can create controversy so I hope if you feel you must disagree it is not done disagreeably, just at the time when I think this could bring interesting results.

Spot on Baker. When I started this thread it was just an idea and a attempt to get some creative guys thinking about the concept.

Smart guys are often quite passionate about their opinions and sensitive to criticism.

I am almost done with my flute. It has taken longer than I expected. They take a lot of hours to build. ( I cant believe KS sells them so cheap.)

I was not planning on building a continuous still design any time soon but wanted to express my thoughts.
To keep these smart guys engaged I may start a experimental small scale unit of my design just to see what kind of results I get.
I am more a practical hands on guy than a numbers cruncher.

I have notice that a lot of guys respond to pictures of actual projects and info about test results. If I post my failures and successes, opinions will abound. Alternative ideas will sprout.
MR