Any ideas for a still??

[Horwood]

Last week I managed to get some copper tubing from a local scrap merchant.
But could only get about 18" of 3" copper pipe and about 3 times 24" of 2" pipe.

Most of the E-85 stills I have seen need all 3" copper tube...

So does anyone know of any other designs that exist out there, that could be put together with the type of tubing and amount I have?

Before I got the copper tubing I thought a Budget way to make a still was to collect all my stainless steel tin cans and to weld/braze them together to make the amount of 3" tube that was required!! Any comments on this idea would be interesting???

Thanks for your replies...



Magus

[Husker]

You are probably better off to use the 2" to build the column, and the 3" to make your condensor with.

See the parent site: http://homedistiller.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow for many design specs on building this.

If you have 3 x 24" sections of 2", then you have more than enough. That would be almost 1.8m of column, more than enough, if packed with SS pot scrubbers or structured copper mesh, to produce 96% all day long.

Building with a 3" column will allow you to run "faster" (more power), but you have not yet made a reason for the needed extra speed. If you are doing this to produce fuel, AND you have the capabilities to produce enough mash to keep the still running, then the extra power (and faster distill time), may be needed. However, even then, if you simply strip out the mash first, then combine several stripped runs to so a single high proof run, I am pretty sure that 2" column would actually perform as quick (or quicker) as a 3" column (if the 3" was performing spirit runs directly from the mash).

The choice is yours however. But hearing that you procured your pipe from the salvage yard, I assume that you are not trying to run a high volume "semi-comercial" still, but are simply "testing the water". Which is why I think the 2" column will do you just fine.

H.

[Horwood]

You are probably better off to use the 2" to build the column, and the 3" to make your condensor with.

See the parent site: http://homedistiller.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow for many design specs on building this.

If you have 3 x 24" sections of 2", then you have more than enough. That would be almost 1.8m of column, more than enough, if packed with SS pot scrubbers or structured copper mesh, to produce 96% all day long.

Building with a 3" column will allow you to run "faster" (more power), but you have not yet made a reason for the needed extra speed. If you are doing this to produce fuel, AND you have the capabilities to produce enough mash to keep the still running, then the extra power (and faster distill time), may be needed. However, even then, if you simply strip out the mash first, then combine several stripped runs to so a single high proof run, I am pretty sure that 2" column would actually perform as quick (or quicker) as a 3" column (if the 3" was performing spirit runs directly from the mash).

The choice is yours however. But hearing that you procured your pipe from the salvage yard, I assume that you are not trying to run a high volume "semi-comercial" still, but are simply "testing the water". Which is why I think the 2" column will do you just fine.

H.

Husker,

Sounds good .
Yeah, you are right, just testing the water. I have a workshop and have got some old engines and hopefully in the process will convert these to run from E-85.

All I need to sort out is how much packing to put in the 2" stack and how big the condensor on top should be, and away I will go...


Cheers...

Magus

[Husker]

That is a good price on scrubbers. I got 20 of them for $32 (shipping was $5 if I remember right). $10 a dozen is a damn good price.

H.

[Horwood]

Okay, Found this design...

This should be possible?

http://www.moonshine-still.com/Photo/Ex ... lHead1.jpg

What do you all think?

Magus...

[rezaxis]

Seems like everybody that just starts out ends up with the design you pictured above. That's what I got... and it works as advertised.

Given that, I now think there are easier, cheaper and at least equal designs out there. Keep looking before you cut up your copper.

If I could start over I would just make a pot still. I like the stuff with some flavor anyway, and enjoy the "art" part of making a run. A pot still is simple. They can be downright beautiful things. You can make any of the flavorful liquors, and if you want to make vodka you can do multiple distillations to get there.

Just what I think anyways.

Rez

[Horwood]

Seems like everybody that just starts out ends up with the design you pictured above. That's what I got... and it works as advertised.

Given that, I now think there are easier, cheaper and at least equal designs out there. Keep looking before you cut up your copper.

If I could start over I would just make a pot still. I like the stuff with some flavor anyway, and enjoy the "art" part of making a run. A pot still is simple. They can be downright beautiful things. You can make any of the flavorful liquors, and if you want to make vodka you can do multiple distillations to get there.

Just what I think anyways.

Rez

Yeah, rezaxis, I am still looking, not quit ready yet ...

Making still for fuel so a pot still will not cut it...

Any ideas for cheaper alternatives, feel free to say ?

Magus..

[Husker]

I built my still much like the one shown, but only used a single needle valve, and a straight pipe from the collection cap back to the column (reflux return). That pipe is situated just a little above the bottom of the collection cup (so that there is a little volume prior to returning it reflux). Thus, I can control the rate of reflux perfectly, with knowlede of the max rate of the still (for this proof mash), by simply adjusting the one needle valve to return a fraction of that max volume rate. Also, I have a female fitting on the bowl that attaches to my keg (boiler), and a male fitting on the bottom of the column. Then at the top of the column, there is a female fitting, and my still head has a male fitting. And the still head has a little over a foot of column from that male fitting, up to where the reflux is returned. This allows a great amount of flexibility to set up the still in pot-still mode, in a pot-still mode that allows for high reflux early on (to remove fores and heads accurately), or to run in a neutral spirit fractionating reflux mode.

However, there is an inline design (bokabob), which seems to be MUCH simpler to put together. A search through the parent site and throgh forum messages should turn up quite a bit for the inline design. My next still project will be an inline, but my offset is working fine, and does everthing I need it to do, so for now (for me) I see no reason to change. But since you have raw materials, and no still (yet), you can do whatever is good quality, and easy to do (the inline is MUCH easier than the offset, much less soldering, and I "did" have problems getting my offset to solder properly).

H.

[Horwood]

Thanks for the information Husker..

I may have the pipe, but have been looking around for the fittings and am rather shocked on the price of them?
'T' junctions; 2 needed at the cheapest price I can get is £48.99 ($95.85) each, so thats almost £100 ($195.67) just for those !!!

Now I do have a full workshop with some spare brass and copper around, so may just have to drill the holes and solder the pipes straight in and put brass or copper end caps on myself with solder. But it will make things harder to clean!!

This weekend though, I am going to travel down the road, about an hour away is a metal scrap yard, so maybe I can get something there, but I am not holding my breath as I have made many phone calls already to try and obtain these joints at a cheap price...



Magus

[Uncle Remus]

I don't know anything about fuel production. Is there really any need to use copper for the column? Couldn't a guy just use say 5" exhaust tubing for a column and say maybe a 1.5'' exhaust tube for a lin style condenser? After all it's not for drinking purposes. If it was me I'd wanna build one that would pump out gallons in an hour.

[Horwood]

I don't know anything about fuel production. Is there really any need to use copper for the column? Couldn't a guy just use say 5" exhaust tubing for a column and say maybe a 1.5'' exhaust tube for a lin style condenser? After all it's not for drinking purposes. If it was me I'd wanna build one that would pump out gallons in an hour.

I have thought about other materials, but only thought about it so far..
The problem is I like the look of the copper stills and it will be a challange to make one..

If I cannot find any joints ect over the weekend, then I have decided to fabricate my own using the Brass I have.
Should be fun... But will just take a little longer to make..

Magus

[Husker]

Again, since you have the copper tubing, you might want to look into the inline condesor model. There are no (or minimal) fittings required. The only "possible" fitting(s) you will need are couplers to join your sections (sweat solder couplers are cheap, but if you want threaded couplers, they are EXPENSIVE), and possibly a reducer (3" to 2"), if you use the 3" section as your condensor. If you simply use the top of the 2" column as your condensor, then there are no fittings needed at all (other than the couplers).

But UR is right. 4" or so stainless tubing is pretty darn cheap (compared to copper), AND it should hold up better over time than copper.

H.

[Horwood]

Again, since you have the copper tubing, you might want to look into the inline condesor model. There are no (or minimal) fittings required. The only "possible" fitting(s) you will need are couplers to join your sections (sweat solder couplers are cheap, but if you want threaded couplers, they are EXPENSIVE), and possibly a reducer (3" to 2"), if you use the 3" section as your condensor. If you simply use the top of the 2" column as your condensor, then there are no fittings needed at all (other than the couplers).

But UR is right. 4" or so stainless tubing is pretty darn cheap (compared to copper), AND it should hold up better over time than copper.

H.

I think the problem is, over here in the UK, the sweat joints are at the prices I have already stated. The threaded couplers are as you said, even more expensive...

Stainless steel over here, is just slightly more expensive than copper...

As said, I have a full work shop capable of producing small model steam engines ect, fitted with lathes, milling machines ect, ect, so if need be, as said, I will fabricate my own.

Another idea that came to me yesterday was using stainless steel mixing bowls to produce a strange still that may work out quite cheap to produce, but is a bit more complicated time wise concerning puting it all together and sealing it with gaskets.

I have got an image, but cannot seem to work out how to put it on this forum?
But basically is is puting the bowls end to end with holes in the center bases, the lower ones packed with scrubbers the top one open to the air, with a condenser in and a system that will enable the alcohol to be drained away.
The bowls are about 8" at the top/hence in the center of the joins. They look like two silver balls placed together end to end with the connectors joining them...

I hope you can visulise this?
Tell me what you think, but it is just an idea?

Magus...[/img]

[Dog Meat]

There are basic principles to making fuel.

1. The price of retail fuel must be high enough in your area to make the investment worthwhile, as well as the fuel produced being significantly cheaper, and compensate for your time investment.

2. A large quantity of cheap supplies that won't fluctuate in price.

3. The ability to limit and eliminate waste products. It may be fine to make fuel with the ATF folks but if you are running a foul of the EPA folks it serves no purpose.

4. You must have a safe place to do this where children and idiots won't think they can drink and end up getting poisioned. Animals as well. for fuel you will not be eliminating foreshots tails etc, so it will be toxic begining to end.

5. You must be able to make it work. Eliminating the water, and adding additives as needed , as well as adding gasoline so it stays together. A motor will run fine with the water, until the valves and cam start rusting and the oil becomes thick and foamy, which happens just before the block seizes.

6. It would help to have a clear goal as to how much fuel you really need to produce or will use. Is it economical to work two days to produce 10 gallons? Or one day to produce 100 gallons?

That one question alone should be your guide as to what kind of equipment, and how large of a bisic facility you will need to invest in. With fuel its key to eliminate "hands on time" and work on automation as much as possible. (Unless you drive a moped or something, then you could go small scale)

[hoochinoo]

rezaxis, since I am building the same still. Can it be converted to act as a pot still?
I was thinking to cut my column somewhere in the middle and using a 90 degree copper elbow take it off and kind of do the pot still thing.

http://www.oldstatehouse.com/exhibits/a ... recipe.asp

[rezaxis]

hoochinoo: Mine is cut as close to the top of the column as possible. This separates the top part from the column. This allows me to remove almost the entire copper mesh packed column. I have room for one 4" roll of copper mesh in the top portion and still have several inches of open space below the reflux return. With the column removed and the top portion put on the boiler it still allows the output to comfortably clear the top of the boiler.

My limited experience leads me to believe that with just the top portion on the boiler, and shutting down all reflux, I am duplicating exactly what a pot still would do. After all, without reflux and refraction, what else can the still be but a pot still?

In your case you are suggesting cutting your column in the middle and putting a different top portion on when pot stilling. If I were you I wouldn't do that. Keep your column intact. I would just remove the entire column/top portion and take off right from the top of the boiler. Just take care not to overfill the boiler, keep all condenser tubing of a pretty big inside diameter, and think about using a slobber box or doubler.

Rez

[hornedrhodent]

Make your fuel still from steel pipe - then when you give up on trying to make fuel you can use the copper for the drinking stuff.

[Rotgut]

would an internal reflux head work for making fuel?

[wineo]

Heres a link for a e-85 type still.Its cool,but uses an expensive valve.
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
wineo

[Rotgut]

Heres a link for a e-85 type still.Its cool,but uses an expensive valve.
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
wineo

wow looks expensive
whats something like that run?

[hornedrhodent]

would an internal reflux head work for making fuel?

Go for a Bokakob - easy to make - easy to run - and only one needle valve.

No need to worry about cuts for fuel - so run it at 95% until the take off rate doesn't justify the fuel to run it.

[donald F]

You might check out the site

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/alcoholfuel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

They have some great designers and you can upload your pictures in their photo section to show off, You might get some ideas from their photo section yourself.