Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49413Re: [Distillers] Re: flapper valve control of gas fired pot

Expand Messages
  • Zapata Vive
    Oct 9, 2013
      I think your approach is novel and should be applauded.  However, I really have to ask if you want to go to this much trouble to control your gas, do you really want to be using gas at all?  I know it's not helpful in furthering your invention, which I honestly do think should be pursued as I could see it having a possible application for electric control as well.  So I apologize profusely.

      But I've driven off gas and electric.  Gas because at one point I was stilling where I didn't have a handy 220v line and didn't want to install one or wait for the long 120v heatup time.  Gas in the beginning because I had a gas burner already and it was more convenient, familiar and cheaper to start there.  But once I went electric I realized that I should have done it long before.

      If I HAD to use gas again, I certainly would.  But I would certainly be putting my budget and planning towards going electric rather than trying to make gas any better than a tank a burner and a regulator.  Trying to put electric controls on a gas burner rather than an electric element seems a bit like replacing a square wheel with an octagon rather than a circle.  Yeah the octagon would be better, but you could just use a wheel.  Reminds me of showing off a solar powered ice maker that kept beer cold when my friend pointed out that it was 35*F outside and I could just set the beer on the porch.
      Just my $.02
      Now if you're developing it for some commercial application, or just for the time honored tradition of figurin stuff out, by all means go for it!  If you've got the parts lying around, even better!  The point of a solar powered ice maker isn't just to keep beer cold, it's to make ice from fire, even if it was the middle of winter...

      On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:21 PM, <bob@...> wrote:

      Thanks for the comments.

      >you're not boiling it down appreciably - presumably
      when you're done making coffee, you have nearly the same amount
      of liquid as when you started. If you were boiling down the
      coffee, condensing & collecting the vapor outside the boiler,
      eventually you'd get to the point where it would stop percolating
      unless you lowered the riser tube along with the wash volume.


      This is a 3/8ths ss tube inside a boiler that is a 15 gallon SS beer keg. The foot print of that tube is a flange no larger than 3 to 4 inches that is positioned directly in contact with the bottom of the keg. I will go in and hammer a spot to make sure of a flat area. There is no loss outside as the device will be completely inside of the keg. I do not believe it would get to a point of non percolating as the wash is never over 20% by volume alcohol of the entire liquid. So if it is at 18% reduced alcohol at the end of the run it will still percolate but the temperature will have increased. Think of it this way: if you want to make a four cup volume of coffee in your coffee pot it will still make the coffee and percolate just fine but it does not take as long. Or you could make a ten cup in the same coffee pot. That just takes a little longer. Another way of saying it is that it takes a little more heat to cause the percolation to rise up the tube when the volume has lowered by 20% . Most percolation coffee pots have measure marks on the side so you can put the amount of water you want in for the number of cups you intend to make. Same thing I really don’t need to prove out whether a volume decrease still makes less coffee as that has already been proven.

      With all that said it is the gas going up the tube that is lighter than the liquid in the surrounding area that creates the speed and inertia that carries the liquid up the tube. When there is a greater distance above the external liquid then less liquid and more gas would be the result. So it may require more heat, but then isn’t more heat required with the lessening of the ratio of alcohol to water anyway?  Maybe when you decreased the volume 75% or more the percolation would not reach the top but I would not need that amount of reduction and I believe it would still percolate but would be way to much heat required.

      All that my intent is to enable a fool proof mechanical method to keep a steady volume of alcohol going up the column as the heat increases and the alcohol in the boiler decreases. That is until all the usable alcohol has been captured. The steadier the flow from the bottom the less tinkering on the top.  This is a gas fired system so I try to make it as fool proof as I can. Thanks again for all the critique.              



      Bob c


    • Show all 6 messages in this topic