Bourbon from a continuouos still question

[Browndrink]

As I understand it, put simply, a single run on a continiuous still without a doubler will result in a spirit of a certain abv that has the low tails removed but leaves the fores and heads in the distillate. I also think its been said that the large companies who produce product this way (arguably Jack Daniels) claims the large barrel ageing (and perhaps their filtering) removed the heads, etc.

My question: couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still) to vaper off only the fores and heads and keep the stillage as your final product, basically left hearts and clean tails??

[still_stirrin]

My question: couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still) to vaper off only the fores and heads and keep the stillage as your final product, basically left hearts and clean tails??

Why do you think that a 2nd pass through a continuous still would separate any more of the "early product" than the 1st pass?

It seems to me in a "continuous" process, the lighter distillates would always come off before the ethanol. So your product would always be contaminated with fores and heads, unless you have a fractionization tower which will allow the lighter vapors to rise above the ethanol such that it would be drawn off out of a separate outlet.

But why would you need two (or more) passes through a continuous still if you have this type of infrastructure (continuous input & drainage boiler with a tall refraction tower) to begin with?
ss

[Bagasso]

My question: couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still) to vaper off only the fores and heads and keep the stillage as your final product, basically left hearts and clean tails??

I see where you are going with this. Thought about it myself more than a few times but never got around to trying it.

The way I see it, you should be able to run it and end up with what you describe (fores, heads and hearts) then another run to have the fores and heads come over while the hearts come out of the bottom of the column.

Another possibility is to run it slow, on the first run, and end up with hearts and tails in your stillage and run that again to catch the hearts.

My imagination had me running twin columns with separate heating elements so that fores, heads and hearts were fed into the second column and the heat was just enough to "vaper off" the fores and heads and the liquid dripping out of the bottom of the second column was the hearts.

I don't think anyone here has tried anything like that or any variation of it.

[Browndrink]

My question: couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still) to vaper off only the fores and heads and keep the stillage as your final product, basically left hearts and clean tails??

The way I see it, you should be able to run it and end up with what you describe (fores, heads and hearts) then another run to have the fores and heads come over while the hearts come out of the bottom of the column.

Yea, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

I like what I've read about the speed and efficiency and ease of a continuous still. The main critisicm being the fores and heads.

Obviously each run would need a little tuning. But that's part of the fun isn't it ?

[der wo]

My question: couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still) to vaper off only the fores and heads and keep the stillage as your final product, basically left hearts and clean tails??

With what do you want to heat the low wines in the second continous still? With steam like in the first one? So you dilute your low wines? Or with steam filled pipes or an element? Where you want to pull of the spirit? At the bottom will be mainly the water and the clean tails, at the middle of the column (above the heater) ethanol and a bit heads. Sounds difficult.

[Bagasso]

With what do you want to heat the low wines in the second continous still? With steam like in the first one? So you dilute your low wines? Or with steam filled pipes or an element?

Don't know about the OP but I'd just go with an element like the idea of the continuous still at the parent site.

Where you want to pull of the spirit? At the bottom will be mainly the water and the clean tails, at the middle of the column (above the heater) ethanol and a bit heads. Sounds difficult.

You and still_stirrin seem to be thinking that the column would be tuned like a commercial setup. The two runs would be configured different. The first to force tails to the boiler and the second to force hearts to the boiler.

Another option is to take the low wines from the first run and use a pot still to remove fores and heads and keep what is in the pot as your finished product. Looking at it that way may give you an idea of what the OP is trying to do with the two runs through a continuos still.

[der wo]

No, I think I understand the concept.
With a normal continuous still you pull everything from the fores down to a certain abv. And with a "reversed continuous still" too,but here you keep the other part (what falls down the column), the "clean tails", the water and alcohol up to a certain abv. After the reversed second distillation the abv will be lower of course than before. And because you don't use active reflux, you don't get a high abv, so you don't get a good seperation of the fores, so you will loose much ethanol with the fores.
Using a potstill for the second run is a solution of course. But then it's no more a continuous process...

[rad14701]

The theory in the OP's first post is flawed... Continuous stills can't work any magic on a single or multiple runs due to their inherent inefficient/ineffective functionality... Commercial distilleries are all about the bottom line which means they run as fast as possible and waste almost nothing that is alcohol because they have to pay tax on every drop of spirits that exits the still, whether Foreshots, Heads, Hearts, or Tails... Running subsequent times just produces the same smeared results obtained during the first pass... At the hobby level there is absolutely no benefit in running a continuous still unless it is used for stripping runs only...

[Bagasso]

And because you don't use active reflux,

Why not?

Using a potstill for the second run is a solution of course. But then it's no more a continuous process...

Of course, it was to illustrate what the OP was trying to achieve.

[Bagasso]

At the hobby level there is absolutely no benefit in running a continuous still unless it is used for stripping runs only...

Maybe but if a single cut can be done then a tails on the first run and heads/fores on the second (or vise versa) isn't out of the question.

[der wo]

And because you don't use active reflux,

Why not?

I understand the OP post, that he wants to do the normal way, what JD, JB and all the others do, a continuous column without active reflux with a doubler. And then he wants to add a second continuous column, probably passive too. Yes, it would be possible with the system of your picture. I think he had to put some low wines in the boiler at the beginning, that the element is not running dry, no problem. And of course he could add a reflux condenser.
But generally to stabilize a continuous system need much time every time he starts again after a brake. And it's a huge build without benefits for hobby scale. Bad cuts and difficult to start and to stop. It's only a theoretical discussion imo.

[rad14701]

At the hobby level there is absolutely no benefit in running a continuous still unless it is used for stripping runs only...

Maybe but if a single cut can be done then a tails on the first run and heads/fores on the second (or vise versa) isn't out of the question.

Please explain to us, like we're 3rd graders, how you make cuts with a continuous still when every drop that enters is a mix of Foreshots, Heads, Hearts, and Tails... To the best of my knowledge you would need take off ports along the full height of the column, like on plated columns, with thermometers at each port, and then collect smeared spirits at one or more of those ports based on temperature... Very inefficient/ineffective, as stated... Simply not the right tool for the job for anything except stripping away a majority of the water in the boiler charge... Sorry but I have to call bullshit on making accurate cuts with a continuous still...

[shadylane]

... Sorry but I have to call bullshit on making accurate cuts with a continuous still

It can be done, But as you pointed out, not logically on a home distillation scale.
But that don't mean, folks can't brain-storm and talk about it.
If nothing else, we will learn why it's not feasible.
But some times shaking the tree of knowledge, will cause a new idea to fall

[Bagasso]

I understand the OP post, that he wants to do the normal way, what JD, JB and all the others do, a continuous column without active reflux with a doubler. And then he wants to add a second continuous column, probably passive too.

Well he doesn't actually say that there is no active reflux and he doesn't propose a second column. He proposes a second run.

[Bagasso]

Please explain to us, like we're 3rd graders, how you make cuts with a continuous still when every drop that enters is a mix of Foreshots, Heads, Hearts, and Tails...

I don't think I can. Maybe cuts isn't even the correct term.

What I can do is say that in a column fed in the center the idea is that tails and water drop while ethanol and other lighter fractions rise. Run right, the tails should not make it to the top of the column. Maybe it isn't cuts but no matter what you call it, the idea is not much different than a mixture of foreshots, heads, hearts and tails in a pot being separated by a column.

ETA: I remember where I got the idea to call it a cut. In a thread about doing single runs. Someone said that the spot in the run where you decide to stop the run is really your tails cut if you are only doing one run.

[WIski]

Re: Using a Wine filter for wash??

Postby WIski » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:19 pm

Even with single distillation there are cuts being made. There might not be any small jars involved but if you chuck some fores or snuff the wick before the boiler is empty you have made a cut.

[Bagasso]

Even with single distillation there are cuts being made. There might not be any small jars involved but if you chuck some fores or snuff the wick before the boiler is empty you have made a cut.

That was it. I knew it was a thread were steelmb was getting grief about not making cuts, just couldn't remember which one.

I realize that it isn't exactly apples to apples when talking about a continuous still but the separation that happens in a column has to be doing something. So, back on topic, looking at Photonics lab results and thinking about fractions being stacked in a column during stabilization the question that I have is, How much fores/heads could you stack in a column?

Photonics lab results show .4g/l of congeners in his wash. The congeners from 200l of wash would be around 80ml (Considering all congeners so, fores/heads would be less). If someone was to run a LM column at full reflux and fed 200l of wash with a liquid trap right below the condenser would you be able to capture the fores/heads from all 200l?

The product of course would be the hearts/tails overflowing from the boiler and this could be fed into a second column so that it would separate the final product from the tails and water.

The fores/heads would be the smallest fraction which is why I'm thinking that this might be a better procedure than trying to capture fores/heads/hearts in the first run.

[der wo]

I understand the OP post, that he wants to do the normal way, what JD, JB and all the others do, a continuous column without active reflux with a doubler. And then he wants to add a second continuous column, probably passive too.

Well he doesn't actually say that there is no active reflux and he doesn't propose a second column. He proposes a second run.

He writes "a single run on a continiuous still without a doubler" and "that the large companies who produce product this way (arguably Jack Daniels)". So he means a column without active reflux, because all those distilleries don't use active reflux. Why they don't? I am not sure, but for sure they are not allowed to distill higher than 160 proof for Bourbon and active reflux would rise the abv over 160 probably.
Then he writes "couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still)" In A continuous still, not in THE continuous still. Ok, I am not sure, if you have exactly the same logic in your language between "a" and "the". But anyway, using the same column for the second run would need a incredible cleaning before, because the product will be there, where all the spent mash and the tails were before. And it would not be a continuous system anymore, he looses the only advantage of this system. And a second column would be easy to build, because he could use packing instead of plates, because there are no solids in the low wines, and a smaller diameter would be sufficient.

Perhaps the OP will tell us, what he wants to do. Or what he wanted to do, after reading all our comments.


BTW: 20 drips are 1ml. So if he want to drink 7cl a day, he needs 70 x 20 = 1400 drips a day. What means a hobby scale continuos still should produce 2 drips per minute...

[Bagasso]

He writes "a single run on a continiuous still without a doubler" and "that the large companies who produce product this way (arguably Jack Daniels)". So he means a column without active reflux, because all those distilleries don't use active reflux. Why they don't? I am not sure, but for sure they are not allowed to distill higher than 160 proof for Bourbon and active reflux would rise the abv over 160 probably.

To be honest, I think the OP is guessing more than saying how the large companies operate. According to this blog JD actually has 5 plated columns and 5 doublers.

Then he writes "couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still)" In A continuous still, not in THE continuous still. Ok, I am not sure, if you have exactly the same logic in your language between "a" and "the". But anyway, using the same column for the second run would need a incredible cleaning before, because the product will be there, where all the spent mash and the tails were before. And it would not be a continuous system anymore, he looses the only advantage of this system. And a second column would be easy to build, because he could use packing instead of plates, because there are no solids in the low wines, and a smaller diameter would be sufficient.

Same logic but that doesn't mean that the writer meant things that way. Also, the reference to JD is actually about their claim that fores and heads is part of the angel's share that escapes during barrel aging and not about the equipment they use.

The reason why I think a second column is a good idea doesn't even factor in stopping and cleaning. It's a question of doing both runs at the same time in order to save time because at the hobby level we cannot leave a still unattended.

BTW: 20 drips are 1ml. So if he want to drink 7cl a day, he needs 70 x 20 = 1400 drips a day. What means a hobby scale continuos still should produce 2 drips per minute...

Don't know about the OP but, to me, the allure of a continuous still isn't to run it continuously, despite its name, but to be able to run something like a 55 gallon (200l) drum of wash without having to have a boiler that size.

[der wo]

I don't see this thread useful anymore. I don't understand, how your answers match to the quotes of my posts. We have almost the same opinion I think (it is possible to remove fores with a second continuous column. But you see many benefits and I many disadvantages). I don't know what's happening behind the subject. I know, there were many failed threads about continuous stills...

Perhaps if the OP enlighten us with detailed plans and theories, this thread will become interesting again. Or funny

[Bagasso]

I don't see this thread useful anymore. I don't understand, how your answers match to the quotes of my posts.

I think you added too much of your own thoughts into what the OP posted. I'm just pointing out that he isn't really saying "this is how things are done" but just guessing.

We have almost the same opinion I think (it is possible to remove fores with a second continuous column. But you see many benefits and I many disadvantages). I don't know what's happening behind the subject. I know, there were many failed threads about continuous stills...

I don't see many benefits, I see possibilities.

The only benefit is not having to have a huge boiler and shortened heat up times. A keg run regularly makes more than enough and more power shortens heat up time so, people really never look further. Then they get the "you can't do cuts" warning and that ends things quickly.

Perhaps if the OP enlighten us with detailed plans and theories, this thread will become interesting again. Or funny

The OP doesn't have detailed plans or theories. He was asking if we thought the general idea made sense.

Like I said in my first post, seems like almost nobody here has any experience. There have been a few stripper threads but not much else.

[Browndrink]

Sorry guys. I just figured out who OP is. Lol.
I like the idea of a continuous still. Yes, even for home distilling hobbyist quantities. Right now this is all theoretical. If I can work through these basic points I'll build one, or two. I read that JD uses one with no reflux or doubler. I've also heard from people otherwise, which is why I said "arguably".
My continuous still will have a coil or heat plates on the bottom portion of the column. Mash will be fed into the column above the heating section and run down over the plates that are set at a specific temperature. Let's say 200F. Whatever passes through the plates and makes it to the bottom collection tank will be tails. What boils off as it flows over the plates will rise up the column and get condensed. Let's say those are fores, heads and hearts. Only these will be run again in the second run.
Now to the second run. Could be a separate column or just run again through the first column, cleaned and retuned. I sparge my mash and rack after fermentation, so its pretty clear. This second run the plate temp is set at, let's say 185F. The low wines are fed through the column again. As they pass over the plates the fores and heads will boil off to the point the alcohol vapor reaches 160 proof. If that's not a cut, I don't know what is. Everything that runs down over the plates and to the collection tank will be hearts.
The "cut" is made at a specific temperature. One cut is made each run by virtue of the temperature that the system is set at. You are just getting a small stream of mash/low wines to hit that temperature. As soon as the mash starts flowing, so does the alcohol. That is the simplicity of the system as opposed to a typical batch set up where you have to get the charged boiler up to temp and where the boiler and column are continuously changing temperature and need constant attention.

[Hound Dog]

You are just getting a small stream of mash/low wines to hit that temperature. As soon as the mash starts flowing, so does the alcohol. That is the simplicity of the system as opposed to a typical batch set up where you have to get the charged boiler up to temp and where the boiler and column are continuously changing temperature and need constant attention.

BD, the temp of the boiler constantly changes because the alcohol content is constantly changing as you boil more away. This will be the same in a column no matter what temperature you have an element or burner set at. I don't really understand the want for continuous distillation as opposed to batch, but I think the theory you lay out is flawed as I understand it. Perhaps others will chime in with better information.

[Bagasso]

This will be the same in a column no matter what temperature you have an element or burner set at.

Actually the fresh wash flowing in and spent wash flowing out would keep the amount the same in the column, unlike a pot.

This is also the reason why everyone says it will smear but that doesn't matter, or matters less, if you run again. Just like a stripping run. Nobody worries about the smearing caused by pushing a stripping run hard.

[Browndrink]

You are just getting a small stream of mash/low wines to hit that temperature. As soon as the mash starts flowing, so does the alcohol. That is the simplicity of the system as opposed to a typical batch set up where you have to get the charged boiler up to temp and where the boiler and column are continuously changing temperature and need constant attention.

BD, the temp of the boiler constantly changes because the alcohol content is constantly changing as you boil more away. This will be the same in a column no matter what temperature you have an element or burner set at. I don't really understand the want for continuous distillation as opposed to batch, but I think the theory you lay out is flawed as I understand it. Perhaps others will chime in with better information.

The column will maintain temp because it is being replenished with new mash at the original alcohol level. In the batch system, the mash is constantly lowering in alcohol.

[Browndrink]

This will be the same in a column no matter what temperature you have an element or burner set at.

Actually the fresh wash flowing in and spent wash flowing out would keep the amount the same in the column unlike a pot.

This is also the reason why everyone says it will smear but that doesn't matter, or matters less, if you run again. Just like a stripping run. Nobody worries about the smearing caused by pushing a stripping run hard.

Smearing is a problem basically because of rising temperature. The continuous still will maintain temp because the stream of mash will just be a trickle.

[Bagasso]

Smearing is a problem basically because of rising temperature. The continuous still will maintain temp because the stream of mash will just be a trickle.

First off, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth in the previous posts but the opening post was a bit slim on info.

The smearing mentioned in continuous still threads is the fresh fores/heads coming into the column with the new wash and not being separated before ending up in a collection jar.

When running a column in batch mode the procedure is to run under full reflux in order to give the fores and heads time to make their way up to the top of the column. Some people run like this for up to an hour and one can only deduce that they taste some difference if they rush this part of the run. In a continuous still this part is left out and this is probably the biggest disadvantage that people see in the continuous design.

[Browndrink]

Smearing is a problem basically because of rising temperature. The continuous still will maintain temp because the stream of mash will just be a trickle.

First off, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth in the previous posts but the opening post was a bit slim on info.

The smearing mentioned in continuous still threads is the fresh fores/heads coming into the column with the new wash and not being separated before ending up in a collection jar.

When running a column in batch mode the procedure is to run under full reflux in order to give the fores and heads time to make their way up to the top of the column. Some people run like this for up to an hour and one can only deduce that they taste some difference if they rush this part of the run. In a continuous still this part is left out and this is probably the biggest disadvantage that people see in the continuous design.

My original post was slim on info for sure. My bad.

The smearing of the fores, heads and hearts happens because the temperature is set to boil off everything but the tails for the incoming mash. The tails just run through to the waste tank. The second run temp is set to boil off only the fores and heads (those two smear together). The hearts run through and are collected in the "waste" tank.

[Bagasso]

The smearing of the fores and heads does happen with one run. The second run will take care of that.

Well, it is the same process so it seems that if it can happen in one run it could happen in any subsequent run as well. Of course it depends on how things are run but until someone tries it and others follow suit, with similar results, it's just spitballing.

I'm currently reading a thread from another forum on the topic. Someone made a good point about cutting out tails being easier than cutting out heads, particularly ethyl acetate, due to the boiling point of the compounds being so close to the boiling point of ethanol.

Did you read the post I made earlier about having the first column/run being set up to trap fores/heads? I mentioned, in an even earlier post, that maybe it would be better if the first run focused on separating fores/heads from the hearts/tails/water and then the second run focused on separating hearts from tails/water. The reason being that the first run could be done under full reflux in order to imitate the fraction stacking that takes place during the equalizing part of a batch run.

[Hank Reardon]

As I understand it, put simply, a single run on a continiuous still without a doubler will result in a spirit of a certain abv that has the low tails removed but leaves the fores and heads in the distillate. I also think its been said that the large companies who produce product this way (arguably Jack Daniels) claims the large barrel ageing (and perhaps their filtering) removed the heads, etc.

My question: couldnt you simply run the distillate a second time ( in a continuous still) to vaper off only the fores and heads and keep the stillage as your final product, basically left hearts and clean tails??

Maybe you can help the pnut gallery with a diagram of your continuous still?

I think the entire conversation depends on how aligned we are when relative terms are thrown into a post as if they are the same for
All people and all equipment.