> I know ours has a thumper.  without the thumper you would have to
> cook your mash twice to get the same alcohol content and smoothness.  We
> always put some of the first runnings in the thumper to increase alcohol
> content.  Not sure how or why this works--hubby could answer you better
> about the thumper.

O' Hubby of  Deb,

I'm still a little confused as to how the Thumper actually works.  From the
sounds of it, to be getting 170-190 proof, from a single pass, its as
though the thumber is effectively doing a second distillation for ya. Does
it have a heat source under it, or is it just the heat of the vapour coming
into it ?

Tony

Tony & Elle Ackland wrote:

>
>
> I'm still a little confused as to how the Thumper actually works.   Does
> it have a heat source under it, or is it just the heat of the vapour coming
> into it ?
>
> Tony

Tony,

From what little I know, I do know there is no heat source under the thump
(slobber) box. You are correct that it just works with hot vapor.

The copper "slobber box" through which the distilled vapors pass and where much
of the water vapor, with its inherent bad taste, would condense. There is a
fine copper  screen halfway down the inside of this device to catch any
sediment, and a petcock at the bottom to allow periodic draining of the water.

Mark

Here are some pics of the still I just bought.I don't have it, yet, but
am anxiously waiting.
It may need a bit of polishing, and definately needs some exercise.
Enjoy and let me know what you think.

Mark

Dear Tony & Elle,
A thumper is the same as a bubbler, a doubler, or
a slobber pot. These old stills were widely used
and widely copied, and probably not one of the
people who made them ever refered to a book  to
understand the principals of distillation: this
was an art handed down through many generations,
and widely copied. Hence, there are many names for
the various parts of a still, and also many
variations.
I have an excellent description of how the bubbler
works and why, and also a good description of
reflux and proof control in  Chapter 2 of my book,
How to Make an Alcohol Still.
See "Operation of an alcohol still", Chapter 2 of
Robert
Warren's ethanol
manual "Building the Charles 803 alcohol fuel
still",
is now on our website, at:
http://jtforever.org/ethanol_still2.html

You may also find  links to Chapter One, as well
as a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ)
there. The focus of this web site is about the
making and use of 180 proof grain alcohol
(ethanol) as a replacement for gasoline, as a
fuel.

------Original Message------
From: Jacques La Marr <jaclamar@...>
To: Tony & Elle Ackland
<Tony.Ackland@...>
Sent: May 1, 2000 12:17:49 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [Distillers] new still
cummin'...Debbie


Tony & Elle Ackland wrote:

> I'm still a little confused as to how the
Thumper actually works.   Does
> it have a heat source under it, or is it just
the heat of the vapour coming
> into it ?
>
> Tony

Tony,

>From what little I know, I do know there is no
heat source under the thump
(slobber) box. You are correct that it just works
with hot vapor.
The copper "slobber box" through which the
distilled vapors pass and where much
of the water vapor, with its inherent bad taste,
would condense. There is a
fine copper  screen halfway down the inside of
this device to catch any
sediment, and a petcock at the bottom to allow
periodic draining of the water.

Mark

****************
* _\|/_
* {@ @}
OO-(_)-OOo--
****************
robertwarren@...

---------------------
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

For some obscure reason, i am subscribed to this list twice. So
what?
Well i get each message twice which used to be just a minor
irritation, but since the posting of pics of stills this means
extremely lengthy downloads. Please help.

On 26 Apr 00, at 11:18, Louie Belle wrote:

> Hello people, I am from Sydney Australia, and Im very new to this concept
> of building your own still, I got some instructions from the stillmaker
> web site ( http://stillmaker.dreamhost.com ) for the copper still, I was
> wondering if any Australians had actually build this particular design

Although i am not an australian, could i suggest that you look first
at the design in the Stone /Nixon ebook which has the distillate
take off between the condenser and the column for the following
reasons.
It is much easier to acheive total reflux with this design (i built the
stillmaker design first and then adapted it to the stone/ nixon
design).
The subsequent control of the reflux ratio when the still is in
production is also easier since the anount of reflux is controlled by
a valve rather than the heat input/ cooling water only.
It seems to me that the cooling effect of the tubes which pass
through the column must cause turbulence and therfore effect the
efficiency of the reflux process.

It is also considerably easier to build since it does away with
a) passing the cooling tubes through the column which is fiddly and
hard to solder and obstructs the insertion of packing especially if it
consists of pot scrubbers.
b) making the sleeve type condenser which is challenging with
standard fittings.

In my view the few $ the book costs are well spent if only for the
exhaustive explanation of the process.

Just the heat of the vapor going into it.  Thumper is too hot to touch when
it starts to force vapor thru the condenser.  It actually makes a thumping
noise and vibrates from the vapor being forced thru the liquid you place in
the te thumper.

Deb Brewer

witchwriter@... <mailto:witchwriter@...>

ICQ #13688671

 

.:*W*:._.:*I*:._.:*T*:._.:*C*:._.:*H*:._.:*W*:._.:*R*:._.:*I*:._.:*T*:._.:*E
*:._.:*R*:.

 

Get PAID to surf with AllAdvantage!

http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=ATQ589
<http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=ATQ589>



-----Original Message-----
From: Tony & Elle Ackland [mailto:ackland@...]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 5:46 AM
To: 'Deb'; Distillers@onelist. com
Subject: RE: [Distillers] new still cummin'...Debbie


> I know ours has a thumper.  without the thumper you would have to
> cook your mash twice to get the same alcohol content and smoothness.  We
> always put some of the first runnings in the thumper to increase alcohol
> content.  Not sure how or why this works--hubby could answer you better
> about the thumper.

O' Hubby of  Deb,

I'm still a little confused as to how the Thumper actually works.  From the
sounds of it, to be getting 170-190 proof, from a single pass, its as
though the thumber is effectively doing a second distillation for ya. Does
it have a heat source under it, or is it just the heat of the vapour coming
into it ?

Tony

Thanks to Warren, David, Deb and "Jessie Duke" I think I've finally got this
Thumper / slobber business worked out, using the Ethanol-Water equilibrium
graph (as shown at http://www.geocities.com/kiwi_distiller/theory.htm ) as a
basis.

Does this sound feasible ?

* Say initial mash is a 10% brew.  The vapour coming off is around 93
C and 55% purity.  This passes into the thumper keg, and bubbles into a
small amount of cold water in the bottom of it.  Initially the water will
absorb much of the alcohol in the vapour, and possibly also much of the
water present too, depending how much contact there is between the steam &
water.

* The liquid in the thumper begins heating up, and also increasing in
% alcohol.
* After some time period, the two will approach equilibrium - say
(absolute guess) 40% alcohol & 84 C.

* Beyond this point, any additional heat coming into the thumper will
be causing alcohol vapour to come out of the liquid, but this is now at 80+
% (eg the 170-190 proof that Deb is getting) because it is effectively
coming off a thumper wash which is at 40%.  Thus a second distillation
occurs in the thumper.


Where i was wrong before in my thinking ....  I couldn't see how there was
enough heat coming in, to cause the thumper to do the second distillation.
But ... the incoming steam is still at 93 C, whereas the outgoing vapour
only needs to be at 84 C - so it can cool a little, and still be hot enought
to work.  In addition, the incoming steam is a greater flowrate than the
outgoing vapour (because of the change in alcohol concentration), so again,
it will have surplus energy.

The incoming steam won't simply just bubble through the liquid and keep on
going (at a low % purity), because of the cooling due to heat losses from
the thumper area. This would then become a control on how pure the final
distillate is - a cooler thumper would give a higher purity final
distillate, provided it didn't too cold (eg stuck below 78 C) and stop
working.  This is also why you wouldn't heat the thumper - if you did this,
all you'd get would be very low purity distillate (as per the temperature on
the graph).

The thumper will slowly be filling with liquid (mostly water, but saturated
with alcohol); thus the need to have either an overflow (as described by
Warren)  or enough capacity.  This liquid will be high in %alcohol, so don't
toss it, but return to the still at some point.

Gees - took me while to get there, didn't it.  Thanks for all your patience
during this,

Tony

thanks Deb,

>  Close :)
whew !!

  > You fill the thumper about 1/3 full
how much does it hold ?

Tony

witchwriter@...

http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=ATQ589

Has anyone noticed that each piece of html formatted list mail now comes loaded
with cookies that originate from "servedby.advertising.com" and/or
"doubleclick.net"?

I assume that must mean that everytime we read a distillers message and accept a
cookie we are allowing some advertising company to view our browser history.
Most of them expire Nov. 09, 2030 so they have long term plans for us.

If your browser is set for automatic cookie acceptance you won't know what I'm
talking about here. Also, cookies don't appear to be arriving with the plain
text messages.

Anyone know what's up with this? I sent egroups an inquiry. I'll advise if I
ever hear anything about it.

Don

I'm subscribed to the same group--not sure why you aren't getting pics.
When I tried to reply to you privately, your mail was returned with----- The
following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

Deb :)



>What list are you subscribed to?

>I don't get the images that folks are attaching to the posts, or maybe I'm
>not subscribed properly. I'm on the Distillers@OneList

Firstly, I would like to introduce myself to the list, I have been
lurking in the archives for a couple of days sucking up knowledge as
I'm a newbie to distilling. David, I read your previous 'sugar
primer'and would like to know the relatve merits of sugar and
dextrose. I realise that sugar is cheaper and dextrose dissolves
easier, but does dexrose produce a better end result?

Ross

Ross,
           In some ways its subjective but I believe yes. At the end of the
day a lot of it comes down to costs and you have to weigh  this up
carefully. Sugar after all in most forms is expensive. If it wasnt for the
tax on alcohol virtually none of us would be fermenting and distilling
alcohol made from sugar. Grains are after all that much cheaper largely due
to less processing and manufacturing costs. How much effect the choice of
sugar actually has on the finished product relative sweetness taste I dont
know. Obviously its not as much as the Relative Sweetness for the base
starting materials as its alcohol made from these materials that we are
tasting and not the materials themselves any longer. At this stage I am
still trying to find out. I have sent my enquiry off to the technical
manager of NZ Sugar as their will have been work and research done on this
sometime in the past.  When I receive this information I will get back to
you and other members of the group. All in the meantime.
B.r.,  David


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Brown <rossbrown@...>
To: Distillers@egroups.com <Distillers@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:03 AM
Subject: [Distillers] Sugar or Dextrose ..... David


>Firstly, I would like to introduce myself to the list, I have been
>lurking in the archives for a couple of days sucking up knowledge as
>I'm a newbie to distilling. David, I read your previous 'sugar
>primer'and would like to know the relatve merits of sugar and
>dextrose. I realise that sugar is cheaper and dextrose dissolves
>easier, but does dexrose produce a better end result?
>
>Ross
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Now the best and coolest websites come right to you based on your
>unique interests. eTour.com is surfing without searching.
>And, it's FREE!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/3013/3/_/441693/_/957297719/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

Has anyone on the list tried distilling mash made from malt extract.
I am talking about the unhopped variety not the type sold in beer
kits i also presume the procedure would be undertaken in a pot still
(with or without slobber box) to preserve the character of the
product. I am tempted to have a go at producing 'malt whiskey'
although I'm pretty realistic about the likely flavour in relation to that
hallowed product.

------Original Message------
From: "DAVID REID" <nzag@...>
To: "Ross Brown" <rossbrown@...>
Sent: May 2, 2000 6:13:48 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [Distillers] Sugar or Dextrose .....
David

Dear David, Ross, et al,
Back about 25 years ago, when I kept milk goats, I
would feed them molasses lathered on top of their
grain and alfalfa pellets, as it is a good source
of minerals for them, especially phosphorous.
Anyway, I lived in the mountains, and would drive
to the Port of Stockton (California) once a month
where I could fill up a 50 gal barrel of molasses
for $.21/pound. A 50 gallon barrel was around 600
pounds (273 kilos) and kept a lot of
goats happy and made them good milk producers. As
a fuel source, molasses is ideal, as it easily
mixes with warm water (two parts water per one
part molasses,) When you add the yeast, it
ferments pretty good, as the yeast organism love
it,
too! Molasses, by the way, is what rum is made of,
that is, sugar cane molasses.
So I would make the trip once every couple
of months, and buy one barrel for my goats and one
for playing at making my own fuel.
Now at a price of $0.21/pound, a barrel weighing
600 pounds (molasses is about 12.5 pounds to the
gallon, same as honey, almost.) cost me $126.00. I
would get one barrel, mix it down with water, so I
ended up with three barrels of black watery syrup,
and take a balling hydrometer reading. I was after
a sugar content of 25% Anything higher than that
wouldn't ferment out all the sugar, as the yeast
will end up dying when the alcohol level reaches
14%, unless you use a turbo yeast. You end up with
three 50 gal. barrels of fermented brew, or 150
gallons at 25% sugar which
ferments down to 14 % alcohol. Once distilled, it
yields around 23.3 gal of, for about $144.
(remember, you get half as much alcohol as you get
sugar, and next, the formula for 180 proof would
be (150 gal x .14)/.9= 23.3 gallons. 14 %
alcohol to begin with, 90 % alcohol as an end
product.
$126.00 for 23 gallons of fuel works out to around
$5.40/gallon. You can see I didn't make any money
with this, but it was a good one-time education,
something I had to try. I was more interested in
being able to demonstrate how well the still
worked, and next, how well engines ran on the 160
to 180 proof.
These are some pretty old figures, from
twenty-some
years ago, but that is what I remember. Molasses
is what rum is made from. It makes a pretty
powerful brew when you get 180 proof out of it.
So, it worked out to about $1.00/gal. I was
getting it at the port, buying in bulk, where it
was brought in from Hawaii on tankers, to the
Stockton Spreckles Sugar plant.
I just now did a
search on the Net for commodity per ton prices on
molasses,
and this is what I found:
The Calif. Agricultural commodities directory,
published by the Dept. of Agriculture, (USDA) ,
at :
http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/JO_GR225.txt
provides these prices for 4 April, 2000:
The bulk price for molasses, per ton (2,000 pounds
: Molasses, Cane Feeding
FOB Stockton & Los Angeles Ports
62.50-65.00/ton.
So, $65.00/2,000 pounds = $0.0325/lb. I was paying
an exorbitant price at $0.21 /pound (but I was
buying a small quantity, not a whole ton.
Okay, so lets' do the math for someone buying a
ton of molasses at a time, say, for $0.04/pound
(that is $80.00/ton, which allows someone else to
make some money selling it to you if his price is
$62.50/ton.
2,000 pounds of molasses / 12.5= 160 gallons of
molasses. Add two parts water, and you get 480
gals. Of syrup for fermenting.. If you can get a
25 or 26 % sugar content (this has to be a high
grade molasses), then 14 14% alcohol, at 180 proof
you get 480 gal x .14) .9= 74.6 gallons of 180
proof. Ok, so you paid $80 for the molasses, and
got 75 gals. Of fuel, which works out to $1.07 for
fuel. If you are good at buying and negotiating
prices and buying in quantity, if you can buy at
$65.00/ton, your price for fuel is down to
$0.87/gal.
Now that is a price where a person
could go into business, because at a raw materials
price of $0.87/gal, it is not unreasonable to
figure that the manufactured cost of
molasses-derived alcohol would be about $1.15/gal
(we have to figure in fuel and labor costs, etc,
as well as to capitalize out the cost of
manufacturing equipment over a ten year period).
If you can make it for $1.15/gallon, you can sell
it at $1.50 /gallon, and make a $0.35/gallon
profit. That is better than what gas stations are
making these days! I need to remind my readers, I
am not a drinker and do not advocate this as a
business for making hootch to sell. I am only
promoting the making of ethanol as a fuel which
you can use in your car or truck, instead of
gasoline. Please see the web pages I have written
on this , starting with
http://members.tripod.com/journey_to_forever/ethanol_robert4.html
and this will link you to Alcohol fuel FAQ's,
also.
Another product you might try, and I highly
recommend, (as I have kept bees for over 25 years)
is honey. There were a few times when I would have
a big honey accident, like dropping two one gallon
jars on the concrete steps, or leaving the honey
barrel spout open when filling 60 pound (5 gallon)
tins from the settling tank. Honey doesn't make
any noise as it runs, so it is easy to forget you
have a spigot open, then discvoery you have a few
gallons of it on the floor of the honey extraction
shed, along with a lot of dead bees, ants, mud,
etc. SO this was another perfect use for my still,
and I diluted it quite a bit. Honey is 70 % sugar
by volume. It is a mix of mostly glucose, lots of
sucrose, smaller amounts of dextrose, but also 2
or 3% polysaccarides (more complex sugars), plus
flavors, fragrences, and trace amounts of bee
pollen. Every honey is going to be differnt from
other honeys, depending on what flowers were in
season before the honey was harvested.
There are likely some books on making mead, and I
am sure you can find a source for that.
Good luck, All
Robert Warren

Ross,
In some ways its subjective but I believe yes. At
the end of the
day a lot of it comes down to costs and you have
to weigh  this up carefully. Sugar after all in
most forms is expensive. If it wasn't for the
tax on alcohol virtually none of us would be
fermenting and distilling alcohol made from sugar.
Grains are after all that much cheaper largely due
to less processing and manufacturing costs. How
much effect the choice of sugar actually has on
the finished product relative sweetness taste I
dont
know. Obviously its not as much as the Relative
Sweetness for the base starting materials as its
alcohol made from these materials that we are
tasting and not the materials themselves any
longer. At this stage I am still trying to find
out. I have sent my enquiry off to the technical
manager of NZ Sugar as their will have been work
and research done on this sometime in the past.
When I receive this information I will get back to
you and other members of the group. All in the
meantime.
B.r.,  David


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Brown <rossbrown@...>
To: Distillers@egroups.com
<Distillers@egroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:03 AM
Subject: [Distillers] Sugar or Dextrose .....
David


>Firstly, I would like to introduce myself to the
list, I have been
>lurking in the archives for a couple of days
sucking up knowledge as
>I'm a newbie to distilling. David, I read your
previous 'sugar
>primer'and would like to know the relatve merits
of sugar and
>dextrose. I realise that sugar is cheaper and
dextrose dissolves
>easier, but does dexrose produce a better end
result?
>
>Ross
>
>---

****************
* _\|/_
* {@ @}
OO-(_)-OOo--
****************
robertwarren@...

---------------------
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

> where I could fill up a 50 gal barrel of molasses
> for $.21/pound.

Robert,

Very interesting information. Molasses really is an economical source of sugar.

I buy small amounts of feed molasses to mix with oats when I need to medicate my
horses. I buy a gallon jug of it for 80¢.

Don

Hi all,
I am about to fire up my reflux still for the first time and have
been doing some calculations and hit a snag...Reflux ratio.  The
still is modeled after the one described in Bob Lennon's StillMaker
Page.  What i am wondering about is how can I calculate the reflux
ratio when i run it.  This may sound silly, but I can't seem to
rationalize an accurate method without being able to measure the
amount of wash returning downward to the pot.  Any help or
suggestions would be greatly appriciated.  I'm trying to achieve at
least 10:1.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: darryn <darryn@...>
To: Ross Brown <rossbrown@...>
Date: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Distillers]


>Hi Ross
>I started distilling with a Spirits Unlimited reflux still.
>It worked well.(70-85%) Then I built the STILLMAKER still.This
>still gives a steady 93-94%.I must thank STILLMAKER for sharing
>his design with me,because it takes a lot of time and guts to do this
>and you leave yourself open to all types of scrutiny.This still is easy
>and cheap to build.I'm no master tradesman and it only took me 1 day to
>build the head.Since then I have done some research ,and
>I think that I will try some mods on this design.I'm not sure that they
will
>make the still
>any better but it can't hurt to try.
>Mod 1:remove cooling pipe that goes through the column near the bottom.
>Mod 2:put another cooling pipe through the column just above the other one.
>Mod 3:if that doesn't give me enough cooling I'll try wrapping the top of
>the column
>          with 1/4 inch copper tubing as well.
>Mod 4:insulate the column up to the cooling pipes to stop turbulance,and
>insulate the boiler to save energy.
>The book that you asked about is called "THE DISTILLATION OF ALCOHOL"
>written by John Stone and Michael Nixon.I downloaded my copy off their
site.
>The previous version was called  "MAKING GIN & VODKA" I can't find the site
>right now but you can contact Michael at icarus@... and I'm sure
>that he will point you in the right direction.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ross Brown <rossbrown@...>
>To: darryn <darryn@...>
>Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 10:26 AM
>Subject: Re: [Distillers]
>
>
>>G'day Darryn,
>>I'm from Queensland and only new to distilling and the list, in fact I
will
>>be distilling my first run in two hours. I have a Stillspirits unit but
>keen
>>to build my own. I have downloaded the STILLMAKER plans and would
>appreciate
>>any comments on building it.  Also Mike and Johns book what is it, and
>where
>>do you buy it.
>>
>>Ross
>>
>>
>>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>>Hi Giles
>>I'm from Australia too.I've built the STILLMAKER still,and a few others
>with
>>differing results.I manage to get 94% out of my STILLMAKER still which
>makes
>>me pretty happy,but I still think that there is room for improvement.I too
>>think that the cooling pipes that run through the column muck up the
>>refluxing conditions.I purchased the book by Mike and John and I agree
that
>>it goes into great depth.I am keen to build their design but I'm a little
>put
>>off by the time that it takes to equilibriate the column,bleed off the
>>acetone and methanol and then the time taken to distil all the
>alcohol.Could
>>you please let me know what changes you made to your STILLMAKER and your
>>experiences with Mike and Johns still design.Once again,it's great to see
>>Aussies talking on this newsgroup.
>>Thanks in advance.
>>Darryn.
>>
>

-----Original Message-----
From: darryn <darryn@...>
To: Giles <giles@...>
Date: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Distillers] Giles help


>Thanks for your help Giles
>I posted this letter earlier but I think that it may not have reached
>you.How many mls per minute do you draw off of your still ?
>I noticed in one of your earlier postings that you were interested in
making
>scotch using malt extract and a pot still.Have you tried it
>yet ? If yes,how did you go.If you haven't already read it you should have
a
>look back at message number 37,Brian gives a quick
>run down on how to do it.
>Hope to talk again soon.
>Darryn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Giles <giles@...>
>To: darryn <darryn@...>
>Date: Friday, May 05, 2000 4:48 AM
>Subject: Re: [Distillers] Giles help
>
>
>On 7 Mar 00, at 8:54, darryn wrote:
>
>> Could you please let me know what changes you made
>> to your STILLMAKER and your experiences with Mike and Johns still
>> design.Once again,it's great to see Aussies talking on this newsgroup.
>> Thanks in advance. Darryn.
>>
>
>Hi Darryn,
>I was dreading doing the conversion but it didnt turn out too bad in
>the end.
>First i removed the condenser completely and desoldered the
>coolng pipes which go through the column.
>How to block up the holes i took so much trouble to make and
>align accurately?
>I cut two strips of sheet copper culled from an old copper tank
>about 20 mm wider than the holes, cleaned and fluxed  them and
>the column then wrapped them round the column covering the
>holes and trimmed them so that they butted together where they
>met.
>
>Then, and this is important, i secured the copper 'bandages with
>steel wire twisted together to clamp the copper to the column. I
>wired both edges. Then i soldered them on and removed the wire
>which being steel didn't stick to the solder. The having dionet this
>with both sets of holes i tested for soundness with water.
>Dont worry if it looks ugly because you need to insulate the column
>which firther cuts down the tubulence in the column and saves fuel.
>I am now convinced Its a mistake not to do this.
>
>For the condenser, i dont see whhy you cant turn your old
>condenser through 90 degrees so instead of the outlet pointing
>down it points up.
>I made a new condenser with a piece of 28 mm pipe which
>enclosed a coil of about 3 m of copper brake pipe. Its a fibble but
>can be done. It is more efficient than the sleeve type and certainly
>uses less water.
>
>All that remains is to put a teepiece between the condenser and
>the column with a valve on it to remove the distillate. I couldnt find a
>needle valve as suggested by Mike Nixon so i just used a 15 mm
>gatevalve.
>If you follow all this, you should have the same layout as in the
>book. Looks a bit like a cowboy film cactus.
>The beauty of this design is that wen the valve is closed you have
>total reflux something i never acheived with the other design.
>I know the still is open to the atmosphere atr the top but you wont
>lose any vapour out of it as long as your cooling keeps ahead of
>the heat input. If you use the brake pipe condenser Just put your
>hand on the outside of the condenser and see. Mine is stone cold
>after about 2/3 of the way up.
>
>Now. How long to leave the rig in total reflux. Like you i am
>unwilling to let it go for 4 hours before i get anything. I
>compromised and left the still cook for 1-11/2 hours before taking
>the distillate off very slowly.
>
>Teh temperature at the head should tell you when the heads are
>ready to come off.
>I used to have probs telling when the heads were finished before
>but not so now. That stabilising period is excellent for separating
>the methanol. I got about 100ml of pure stinking meths, about 20
>ml of mixed then i was into the good stuff.
>I think that if you keep the heat down and dont tale too much
>ethanol off you can safely leave the still for at least 4 or 5 hours
>before theres any danger of tails.
>I reckon a batch of 10l of pre stripped wash at about 40-50% takes
>me about 8 hours to process from start to finish. The stuff is good
>and i dont really need to filter it though it does go through a
>waterfilter once its diluted.
>i think if you followed Nixon and Stone's advice to the letter, you
>wouldn't need to filter at all. May be ill learn to be more patient one
>day but i doubt it.
>Hopre this helps. Ask more questions if you wish
>

Considering casking at some point, I stumbled upon
http://brewery.org/brewery/library/LmbicJL0696.html

It is a Lambric brewing site which is quite interesting in that it goes
into much detail of some processes applicable to stilling.

What caught my eye was the discussion of selecting a cask. I would think
that those who operate "pot stills" (aka "pot-heads") might benefit form
the idea of running enough to fill one or more of the smaller casks for
aging. Yes, I know how tempting it is to consume all, but for realizing
the most potential of enjoying the delicious developement of flavors
that are retained in the pot method, aging in aged oak, I would think,
would be the only way to go.

Mark