building another, need advise

Jed · Post by **Jed** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:46 pm

I need some imput........ should I get a higher abv content with this design, shorter basic reflux, note it's 24-26 inches tall,
or use a tilt relux design, same size column,same packing, just use a couple of 45's to get all the reflux out of such a short column?
Would the tilt really make any difference?
Excuse the crappy drawings, but you'll get the idea. The whole idea is to keep the column as short as possible with max output.

Jed · Post by **Jed** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:50 pm

this is something of what I had in mind.
Looks like crap but would it make a noticable difference?

Post by **Tater** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:01 pm

Jed might wanna read some theory from parent sight.

Jed · Post by **Jed** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:25 pm

OK....I've read.
A 24" column shouldn't be as good as a 36".
Zig zagging the column should give you the lenght back without the height.
Forget it...sorry I asked.

hornedrhodent · Post by **hornedrhodent** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:37 pm

="Jed

Zig zagging the column should give you the lenght back without the height.
.

The liquid flowing back down the column may not be evenly distributed through the packing to get the proper refluxing effect.

booger · Post by **booger** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:27 pm

It will also be a bit of challenge to pack that column with copper mesh with the cooling tubes going through the column at the top and bottom.

And by a bit of a challenge, I mean impossible.

rkr · Post by **rkr** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:10 pm

Always put all reflux cooling on top of the packing. Don't use marbles, potscrubbers or copper mesh is your best bet. Ditto on reading theory, try the compleat distiller.

Cheers, Riku

Post by **Husker** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:07 am

Jed,

One of the best designs (used by many on this site), is the valved reflux (Nixon/Stone) design. Here is an example:

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

The example uses a removable column, so you can also run with just the still head to use like a pot still. This design is a very capable still. I agree with the others, read the parent site, especially the sections under "Theory" and "Equipment" if you are designing a still. All the information you desire can be found there.

The biggest thing I can say about your design, is to NOT put cooling tubes through the column. They do nothing, except for upset the mechanics of the column right there. The column works, due to a very smooth temperature change from base of column, to the top. That temp change is due to ethanol being vaporized, and water being recondensed along the length of the column. When you put coolant pipes through the column, is breaks down this proper processing. It is TOO BAD that this bad design of a still is still being produced and marketed, when there is the research to show there are much better ways to build a still.

H.

jmc91199 · Post by **jmc91199** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:53 pm

Why not go with the Bokakob design? It is the most straightforward design out there and i think the 24-26" column would work just fine.

TRANSPLANTED HILLBILLY · Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:42 pm

Just out of curiosity, Have you tried any of your other mouse traps before you started designing a better one?

masonjar · Post by **masonjar** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:20 pm

Husker, I'm glad to see that you interpreted the 'Compleat Distiller' book the same way that I did concerning cooling tubes. Unfortunately, we interpreted it partially wrong. I built my still without cooling tubes flowing through the column at all, and it basically works as a pot still. The temperature gradient that was mentioned in 'Compleat Distiller' does not ever develop because my entire 3 feet of column packing very quickly becomes hotter than the boiling point of the wash, and no condensation occurs through the packing. I, in fact, noticed NO difference between packing and no packing at all. After some careful thought, I now believe that the cooling tube at the bottom of this design is utterly useless. It just wastes energy and water, and it disturbs the temperature gradient, effectively making half of the column height wasted. The cooling tube at the top, however, is crucial to the temperature gradient because it is what brings the top of the column down to 172F by repeatedly condensing the vapors and encouraging repeat distillations. It's like getting the condenser from the Nixon/Stone still and shrinking it and lowering it down to the very top of the packing. If I could rebuild my still, I would put the top cooling tube in there, but not the bottom one.

Post by **Husker** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:49 am

masonjar
Husker, I'm glad to see that you interpreted the 'Compleat Distiller' book the same way that I did concerning cooling tubes. Unfortunately, we interpreted it partially wrong. I built my still without cooling tubes flowing through the column at all, and it basically works as a pot still. The temperature gradient that was mentioned in 'Compleat Distiller' does not ever develop because my entire 3 feet of column packing very quickly becomes hotter than the boiling point of the wash, and no condensation occurs through the packing. I, in fact, noticed NO difference between packing and no packing at all. After some careful thought, I now believe that the cooling tube at the bottom of this design is utterly useless. It just wastes energy and water, and it disturbs the temperature gradient, effectively making half of the column height wasted. The cooling tube at the top, however, is crucial to the temperature gradient because it is what brings the top of the column down to 172F by repeatedly condensing the vapors and encouraging repeat distillations. It's like getting the condenser from the Nixon/Stone still and shrinking it and lowering it down to the very top of the packing. If I could rebuild my still, I would put the top cooling tube in there, but not the bottom one.

I do agree that the top cooling coil/tube is the workhorse, even in the design shown in the first post of this thread, and any lower tube/coil are "disturbers" of the process. However, with that design, there is NO (or very little) mechanism to control this reflux (if using just the top coil, which would be the best design). That is why I am so sold on the valved reflux Nixon Stone head design, especially the v2 design where there are 2 valves, 1 for output, and 1 for reflux. With that setup, you are doing a 100% controlled re-adding cooled product right back to the top center of your column packing. Thus, you eventually (hour to several hours) end up with a very good working equalibrium, and can do a much better job of fractionating out the different components that were originally mixed within the mash.

Yes, the tube/coil through the column at the top, "will" produce a reflux effect, and build up a gradient of progressively higher proof vapor in your column. But the contol is simply not there.

H.

masonjar · Post by **masonjar** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:29 am

You can control reflux by adjusting the coolant flow rate, but yeah, it's no where near as good as the Nixon Stone. I'm building the Bokakob with the two elliptical plates now, which is basically the same thing. I have 5 feet of pipe left over so I think I'll make a 2 foot one and a 3 foot one and compare the performance.

dr wacky · Post by **dr wacky** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:14 am

I have a 24 inch by 1 1/2 inch column. Only 20 inches of the column are
packed using 4 stainless stell pot scrubbers. The next couple of inches is
where I loop my reflux condenser through. I have had no problem making
190 proof hootch. The trick seems to be low heat input (less than 1000
watts). With a short column you can't have the vapor shooting up through
it. You need it to creep up the column. Of course this has the downside of
slower collection rate and longer distilling time.

I too had certain space limitations I had to account for in my design.
It does what I need it to do, but I do wish it were 10-12 inches taller.