condensor

Expand Messages
• Does anyone have any experience using this type of condensor design and will it perform as efficiently as a coil occupying the same space?
Message 1 of 16 , Apr 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Does anyone have any experience using this type of condensor design
and will it perform as efficiently as a coil occupying the same space?

• ... As effective? sure...as efficient? Almost. The efficiency of a condenser is proportional to 4 things: 1) Differential temperature - how much colder is the
Message 2 of 16 , Apr 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- povinstitute <povinstitute@...> wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience using this type of condenser design
> and will it perform as efficiently as a coil occupying the same space?
>

As effective? sure...as efficient? Almost.

The efficiency of a condenser is proportional to 4 things:
1) Differential temperature - how much colder is the cooling water than the
vapor it's cooling
2) Flowrate - how much coolant can you push through the coil in a given time
(i.e. liters per hour) which can affect #1
3) Thermal characteristics of the materials used (the coolant and the
condenser)
4) Surface area of the heat transfer surfaces.

To make a valid comparison, on must keep all factors but one constant. So,
assuming we have the first three constant (temp of the water, flowrate of the
water, and materials) then the factor that makes all the difference is the
surface area where the coolant and vapors exchange heat (a 'condenser' is
simply a heat exchanger where a phase change (vapor to liquid) occurs).

The condenser you're referencing is also known as a "cold finger" style, kind
of like a liebig condenser inside out, inside another liebig condenser. The
coolant flows through the outer jacket and back through the center pipe and
finally out through a pipe inside/concentric to that. Effectively, your heat
transfer surfaces are the inner wall of the jacket, and the outer wall of the
"finger" made of the center pipe.

Now, for the math (this is going to be *very* approximate, but it shows the
proportions):
1) We'll assume that we have a outer jacket of 2" and the inner jackect of 1
1/2" (leaving a 1/4" space all around for your water) and the inner "finger" is
1" pipe (the diameter of the outlet in the middle is irrelevant except if it
restricts flow...we'll assume not).
2) We'll also assume that this condenser is a foot long...just 'cuz.
3) the surface area of the outer jacket is 3.14 * 1 1/2" (circumference =
pi*diameter) * 12" ~ 56.5 sq. in.
4) the surface area of the inner pipe is ~ 37.7 sq. in.
5) total heat transfer surface is ~ 95 sq. in. (I'm rounding)

Now a spiral condenser, we'll figure the math like this:
1) We'll assume that we're using 1/4" tubing
2) We'll calculate each revolution of the coil were a separate ring and ignore
the extra area added by the portion that sticks through the wall that supplies
and returns the water...just know that it adds just a little bit more to the
total.
3) Each ring will be ~1 1/2 wide on the outside, but with 1/4" tube, that
means that the hole is 1"...for the sake of a happy medium, we'll assume a 1
1/4" diameter to split the difference.
4) Giving a small (say, 1/8") gap between each ring in the spiral, that allows
for (12" / 3/8" (tube plus gap)) = 32 coils in your spiral.
5) The surface area of each ring is 1/4 * pi (thickness of the tube) times 1
1/4 * pi (diameter of the ring) and equals around 3.1 sq. in.
6) Thus, the total surface area of the coil is 32 * 3.1 or ~ 99 sq.in.
(rounding again).

All told, they're nearly equal...in all honesty, it really left me
reconsidering my next condenser. Furthermore, one could realistically achieve
a much greater flowrate through the cold finger design than the coil, thus one
could maintain a greater differential temperature (less time spent in contact
with the vapor thus heating up) than the coil. The coil's internal size
seriously restricts flow so that the leaving water is quite toasty and at that
point not too effective in condensing.

The remaining consideration for the cold finger design would simply be that of
pressure release. With coil condensers, the top is either open, or at least
vented to protect in the event that heat input should exceed heat removal (i.e.
your pump fails/blows up and stops pumping) or when the heat is turned off, the
rig doesn't implode from the vacuum. The cold finger design as described by
that drawing inherently requires a sealed top...though it could be tweaked to
have a vent.

Very good question,
Trid
-holy crap I'm longwinded
• Thanks Trid for the math you did. I have actually built this condensor but have not used it yet because I am now working on getting the boiler ready. Also, by
Message 3 of 16 , Apr 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Thanks Trid for the math you did. I have actually
built this condensor but have not used it yet because
I am now working on getting the boiler ready. Also, by
design the top of the condensor has a ring open to the
atmosphere for venting. Why would it require a sealed
top? Would that not be a safety issue?
Thanks,
Jeff

--- Trid <triddlywinks@...> wrote:

> --- povinstitute <povinstitute@...> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any experience using this type of
> condenser design
> > and will it perform as efficiently as a coil
> occupying the same space?
> >
>
> As effective? sure...as efficient? Almost.
>
> The efficiency of a condenser is proportional to 4
> things:
> 1) Differential temperature - how much colder is the
> cooling water than the
> vapor it's cooling
> 2) Flowrate - how much coolant can you push through
> the coil in a given time
> (i.e. liters per hour) which can affect #1
> 3) Thermal characteristics of the materials used
> (the coolant and the
> condenser)
> 4) Surface area of the heat transfer surfaces.
>
> To make a valid comparison, on must keep all factors
> but one constant. So,
> assuming we have the first three constant (temp of
> the water, flowrate of the
> water, and materials) then the factor that makes all
> the difference is the
> surface area where the coolant and vapors exchange
> heat (a 'condenser' is
> simply a heat exchanger where a phase change (vapor
> to liquid) occurs).
>
> The condenser you're referencing is also known as a
> "cold finger" style, kind
> of like a liebig condenser inside out, inside
> another liebig condenser. The
> coolant flows through the outer jacket and back
> through the center pipe and
> finally out through a pipe inside/concentric to
> transfer surfaces are the inner wall of the jacket,
> and the outer wall of the
> "finger" made of the center pipe.
>
> Now, for the math (this is going to be *very*
> approximate, but it shows the
> proportions):
> 1) We'll assume that we have a outer jacket of 2"
> and the inner jackect of 1
> 1/2" (leaving a 1/4" space all around for your
> water) and the inner "finger" is
> 1" pipe (the diameter of the outlet in the middle is
> irrelevant except if it
> restricts flow...we'll assume not).
> 2) We'll also assume that this condenser is a foot
> long...just 'cuz.
> 3) the surface area of the outer jacket is 3.14 * 1
> 1/2" (circumference =
> pi*diameter) * 12" ~ 56.5 sq. in.
> 4) the surface area of the inner pipe is ~ 37.7 sq.
> in.
> 5) total heat transfer surface is ~ 95 sq. in. (I'm
> rounding)
>
> Now a spiral condenser, we'll figure the math like
> this:
> 1) We'll assume that we're using 1/4" tubing
> 2) We'll calculate each revolution of the coil were
> a separate ring and ignore
> the extra area added by the portion that sticks
> through the wall that supplies
> and returns the water...just know that it adds just
> a little bit more to the
> total.
> 3) Each ring will be ~1 1/2 wide on the outside,
> but with 1/4" tube, that
> means that the hole is 1"...for the sake of a happy
> medium, we'll assume a 1
> 1/4" diameter to split the difference.
> 4) Giving a small (say, 1/8") gap between each ring
> in the spiral, that allows
> for (12" / 3/8" (tube plus gap)) = 32 coils in your
> spiral.
> 5) The surface area of each ring is 1/4 * pi
> (thickness of the tube) times 1
> 1/4 * pi (diameter of the ring) and equals around
> 3.1 sq. in.
> 6) Thus, the total surface area of the coil is 32 *
> 3.1 or ~ 99 sq.in.
> (rounding again).
>
> All told, they're nearly equal...in all honesty, it
> really left me
> reconsidering my next condenser. Furthermore, one
> could realistically achieve
> a much greater flowrate through the cold finger
> design than the coil, thus one
> could maintain a greater differential temperature
> (less time spent in contact
> with the vapor thus heating up) than the coil. The
> coil's internal size
> seriously restricts flow so that the leaving water
> is quite toasty and at that
> point not too effective in condensing.
>
> The remaining consideration for the cold finger
> design would simply be that of
> pressure release. With coil condensers, the top is
> either open, or at least
> vented to protect in the event that heat input
> should exceed heat removal (i.e.
> your pump fails/blows up and stops pumping) or when
> the heat is turned off, the
> rig doesn't implode from the vacuum. The cold
> finger design as described by
> that drawing inherently requires a sealed
> top...though it could be tweaked to
> have a vent.
>
> Very good question,
> Trid
> -holy crap I'm longwinded
>
• ... Actually, it was only by re-reading the design that I realized that I mis-spoke regarding the sealed top. I had the mental picture of an upper plenum at
Message 4 of 16 , Apr 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- Jeff Peterson <povinstitute@...> wrote:

> Thanks Trid for the math you did. I have actually
> built this condensor but have not used it yet because
> I am now working on getting the boiler ready. Also, by
> design the top of the condensor has a ring open to the
> atmosphere for venting. Why would it require a sealed
> top? Would that not be a safety issue?
> Thanks,
> Jeff

Actually, it was only by re-reading the design that I realized that I mis-spoke
regarding the sealed top. I had the mental picture of an upper plenum at the
top requiring a reducer fro the 1 1/2" inner jacket to the 1" inner tube.
Actually, I would still construct it that way if I were to do it myself, but
given that there's no need for it to be part of the water portion, I could
drill out holes to my heart's content for pressure release...it's sole purpose
would be for keeping the 1" center tube perfectly centered. That could even be
done with spacers in lieu of the expense of a reducing fitting.

Trid
-already putting my shopping list together for this rig
• ... with spacers in lieu of the expense of a reducing fitting. ... Before you get too carried away, Trid. Your original answer was pretty solid, but you
Message 5 of 16 , Apr 4, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Trid <triddlywinks@...> wrote:

with spacers in lieu of the expense of a reducing fitting.
>
> Trid
> -already putting my shopping list together for this rig
>

pretty solid, but you missed a couple of important points.
Condensers efficiency has a few more quirks.
So...

5. Turbulence. Either or both of the fluids being turbulent is more
efficient. Commonly it is accomplished by making sure there is
something in the pathway of the vapour to force it to divert into
the walls of the coolant carrier. It's automatic with coils as they
are at rightangles to the vapour flowpath, and providing you put
something in the centre space (like mesh) there's full turbulence.

There's no such diversion in the proposed design, hence only the
edges of the vapours contact the copper transfer walls, leaving the
middle of the vapour to continue on (it's laminar flow, not
turbulent). You 'may' get some turbulence with the descending
condensate using the same path. You 'may' also get some hold-up of
liquid in the condenser which could lead to problems. It's really
a 'try it & see' situation (IOW, experiment). :)

6. Flow direction. There's 3 basic types of condenser: Co-current
(same direction of flow for both fluids), Counter-current (opposite
directions, considered the most efficient of all) and Cross-current
(fluids travel at rightangles to each other).

In reality, most condensers are a combination of these. For
instance the proposed design has both co-current and counter-
current, therefore it's known as a multi-pass condenser (2 passes in
this case).

Coils are both crossflow (rightangles) and either co- or counter-
current, depending on which way you feed the coolant, top or bottom
coil.

Crossflows are most useful in high-volume and phase-change
situations, like steam recovery and our little application.

If you consider all of the above you will see why Liebig-style
condensers need to be so big or long. No turbulence is the culprit.

There's a paper in the Library that is useful to condenser designers.
http://distillers.tastylime.net/library/DOE_Handbook_Heat_Exchangers/

HTH
Slainte!
regards Harry
• ... ... How s that snipping for efficient use of bandwidth! Anyway, I have seen things that look like archimedes screws that insert into pipe
Message 6 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- Harry <gnikomson2000@...> wrote:

<snip>

> 5. Turbulence.

<snip>

How's that snipping for efficient use of bandwidth!
Anyway,
I have seen things that look like archimedes screws that insert into
pipe work. They are induced to rotate by the flow, and hence actually
break up the laminar pattern of flow further on.
Now I'd guess this wouldn't work with vapour (at least not on our
scale/vapour speed/volumes), but how about a fan at the top of a liebig
blowing down? (not the cold finger design being talked about though).

Just thinking out loud really.
Cheers
Rob.
p.s. Happy Easter Everyone! Remember, rum and chocolate go well
together!

Cheers,
Rob.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
• Not a physicist, but I am pretty sure that the optimal arrangement is a balance between turbulence and laminar flow. Maximising laminar flow reduces heat
Message 7 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Not a physicist, but I am pretty sure that the optimal arrangement is a balance between
turbulence and laminar flow. Maximising laminar flow reduces heat exchange efficiency.
Maximising turbulence impedes coolant and/or vapour flow.

Cheers
• ... Turbulence is related to flowrate. The greater the vapor speed will affect the turbulence, even through a parallel path. However, I like the mesh idea in
Message 8 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- Harry <gnikomson2000@...> wrote:
> 5. Turbulence. Either or both of the fluids being turbulent is more
> efficient. Commonly it is accomplished by making sure there is
> something in the pathway of the vapour to force it to divert into
> the walls of the coolant carrier. It's automatic with coils as they
> are at rightangles to the vapour flowpath, and providing you put
> something in the centre space (like mesh) there's full turbulence.

Turbulence is related to flowrate. The greater the vapor speed will affect the
turbulence, even through a parallel path. However, I like the mesh idea in
that it not only makes for the turbulent flow, but the contact with the heat
transfer surface effectively increases the surface area by means of conduction.

> There's no such diversion in the proposed design, hence only the
> edges of the vapours contact the copper transfer walls, leaving the
> middle of the vapour to continue on (it's laminar flow, not
> turbulent). You 'may' get some turbulence with the descending
> condensate using the same path.

In all fluid flow through a parallel path, there is the laminar boundary layer
at the edges where the fluid contacts the surface, but the ratio of laminar to
turbulent flow is proportional to the speed of the fluid...in our case, using
vapor as that fluid. However, in a case where there is a phase change, I think
it invalidates the laminar boundary layer as the density rapidly changes
creating a vacuum where that laminar layer would exist...I think. Thus, I
think the phase change would affect more turbulence than the droplets of
condensate in the vapor path.

> You 'may' also get some hold-up of
> liquid in the condenser which could lead to problems. It's really
> a 'try it & see' situation (IOW, experiment). :)

I suspect liquid 'hold-up' might be more of a factor proportional to how
tightly packed the mesh would be.

> 6. Flow direction. There's 3 basic types of condenser: Co-current
> (same direction of flow for both fluids), Counter-current (opposite
> directions, considered the most efficient of all) and Cross-current
> (fluids travel at rightangles to each other).
>
> In reality, most condensers are a combination of these. For
> instance the proposed design has both co-current and counter-
> current, therefore it's known as a multi-pass condenser (2 passes in
> this case).

Regardless of the flow direction, this design is a multi pass because it passes
through the two sections in series as opposed to in parallel. In light of
that, designing it as a single pass i.e. where the water is pumped into the
inner and outer pipes simultaneously as opposed to one after the other, it
could be more efficient. However, depending on the flowrate, that difference
could be negligible.

> Coils are both crossflow (rightangles) and either co- or counter-
> current, depending on which way you feed the coolant, top or bottom
> coil.
>
> Crossflows are most useful in high-volume and phase-change
> situations, like steam recovery and our little application.
>
> If you consider all of the above you will see why Liebig-style
> condensers need to be so big or long. No turbulence is the culprit.

They also have a poor surface area to length ratio. For example, a Liebig with
a 1/2" inner pipe and a 24" water jacket has 37.7 sq.in. heat transfer surface.
I have a counter-flow shotgun with 14 tubes with 1/4" id (think big, fat
Liebig with multiple tubes on the inside) and at only 12" long, has a surface
area of 132 sq.in.
The up-side: Liebigs are very easy to clean.

Trid
-really digging the idea of the cold-finger...condenser, you sick little monkeys!!!
• ... Actually, no...turbulence is quite desirable. It s also a factor of flow, not an impediment. The greater the flow, the greater the turbulence and the
Message 9 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- sn_cur <sn_cur@...> wrote:

> Not a physicist, but I am pretty sure that the optimal arrangement is a
> balance between
> turbulence and laminar flow. Maximising laminar flow reduces heat exchange
> efficiency.
> Maximising turbulence impedes coolant and/or vapour flow.

Actually, no...turbulence is quite desirable. It's also a factor of flow, not
an impediment. The greater the flow, the greater the turbulence and the less
laminar flow. Turbulence is desirable because of the mixing effect in the
fluid where heat transfer is occurring.

However, in dealing with situations where a phase change occurs...vapor to
liquid in our case, we want more than just gross heat exchange. In our
coolant, pump like mad...the greater the flow, the better. There's the
turbulence in the coolant that makes it a more efficient heat transfer medium.
On the vapor side, however, if we raise the flowrate, i.e. vapor speed, too
much, then there isn't enough time spent in contact with the heat transfer
surface to affect sufficient heat transfer for condensation to occur. Overall,
there will be a greater magnitude of energy (in the form of heat) transferred
from the vapor to the liquid...that's not what we're after. We're not making
water heaters. Thus, the balance becomes one of heat input to condenser
capacity. But what we're broaching now is the geometry of the rig as a
whole...the power of the heat input, the size (i.d.) of the column, the area of
the vapor space within the condenser, the flow characteristics of the vapor
path through the condenser, the same regarding the coolant through the
condenser, the relative paths of each, the physical size, the temperature of
...then combine all of this with the simple fact that we, at home, can only
construct something *so* elaborate without resorting to a full blown machine
shop (not that some of us don't fantasize :) ).

It can be enough to make one scrap it and grab a bottle of Jack from the store
to make the voices stop :)

Trid
-geek
• Thanks for your considered and interesting responses, Trid ... The greater the flow, the greater the turbulence and the less laminar flow. Turbulence is
Message 10 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Thanks for your considered and interesting responses, Trid

>Actually, no...turbulence is quite desirable. It's also a factor of flow, not an impediment.
The greater the flow, the greater the turbulence and the less laminar flow. Turbulence is
desirable because of the mixing effect in the fluid where heat transfer is occurring.

I agree that a fair bit of turbulence is highly desirable, for the mixing effect. But
presumably there has to be a limit to the amount of turbulence before it starts introducing
resistance to flow. As I understand it, minimising (or at least controlling) turbulence is one
of the main aims in designing large fluid delivery pipes, because turbulence (or at least
uncontrolled and excessive turbulence) increases pumping costs, and the size of the pipe
needed. Although at the flow rates used in stills it may not be an important factor.

Actually, it is even more complicated than that, because I think the aim is to generate a
small controlled turbulence layer at the interface between the fluid and the container
(pipe), because that reduces friction there. But the central bulk of the fluid should be
relatively turbulence free. I think that is also the way ship hull design is moving, smooth
surfaces are out and special (geometrically regular) roughened ones are in these days. The
idea came from shark skin.

>However, in a case where there is a phase change, I think it invalidates the laminar
boundary layer as the density rapidly changes

The dynamic density changes (phase state changes) seem to me a very important factor in
figuring out the behaviour of condensing heat exchangers. The phase state changes alone
will introduce turbulence, and maybe that is all that is needed.

It seems to me that it is a question of the amount and location of the turbulence, not
simply of maximising overall turbulence.

Like I said, I am no physicist, and we are getting into some serious physics here, the
interaction between thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. Love it, but can't say I

>It can be enough to make one scrap it and grab a bottle of Jack from the store to make
the voices stop :)

LMAO! Please, Doctor, make the voices go away! Don't worry son, just take these special
pills, fire up your still, and start swilling.

And it is getting pretty damn late here, so good night.

Cheers
• Trid, Comments inline Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller ... That s what I hope I m addressing in my modified Liebig design. The last 1/4 or so of the 1/2
Message 11 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Trid,

Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller

>From: Trid <triddlywinks@...>
>To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Distillers] Re: condensor
>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--- Harry <gnikomson2000@...> wrote:
> > 5. Turbulence. Either or both of the fluids being turbulent is more
> > efficient. Commonly it is accomplished by making sure there is
> > something in the pathway of the vapour to force it to divert into
> > the walls of the coolant carrier. It's automatic with coils as they
> > are at rightangles to the vapour flowpath, and providing you put
> > something in the centre space (like mesh) there's full turbulence.
>
----snip----.
> >
> > If you consider all of the above you will see why Liebig-style
> > condensers need to be so big or long. No turbulence is the culprit.

That's what I hope I'm addressing in my "modified Liebig" design. The last
1/4 or so of the 1/2" copper pipe vapor path is cross-drilled with 1/4"
holes, spaced along the axis of the Liebig center on about 3/4" centers, and
each rotated 90 degrees from the previous (and next) bore. Each of these
bores has a segment of 1/4" copper tubing swaged and soldered into place,
such that the last part of the vapor path is multiply interrupted by
water-cooled copper, in a patter to induce turbulence.

The reason for this design was experience with a wood-fired still I had many
years ago, dealing with the wide range of energy utputs of a wood fire. In
an earlier incarnation, the vapor path was reduced from 1/2" (nominal)
diameter to 1/4" OD copper tubing as it entered the cooling jacket, and this
condenser arrangement could be overwhelmed by large energy excursions of the
wood fire, whereupon it would blow out the relief valve. When I extended
about 10" of the 1/2" copper pipe inside the cooling jacket, my overpressure
days were over, and I still got all the vapor cooling I could ever want.

That's why my Liebig has perhaps 11" of unobstructed 1/2" copper vapor path
to start, and a lot of turbulence and cooling surface at the end.

>
>They also have a poor surface area to length ratio. For example, a Liebig
>with
>a 1/2" inner pipe and a 24" water jacket has 37.7 sq.in. heat transfer
>surface.
> I have a counter-flow shotgun with 14 tubes with 1/4" id (think big, fat
>Liebig with multiple tubes on the inside) and at only 12" long, has a
>surface
>area of 132 sq.in.
>The up-side: Liebigs are very easy to clean.

MY downside: Should I ever need to clean it, it would not be a pull-through.
>
>Trid
>-really digging the idea of the cold-finger...condenser, you sick little
>monkeys!!!

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage refinance is Hot. *Terms. Get a 5.375%* fix rate. Check savings
• ... Sounds like a nice, long, stiff-bristled brush at about 3000rpm might be in order :) Which brings me back to a previously visited topic of cleaning. I
Message 12 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- Robert Hubble <zymurgybob@...> wrote:

> >The up-side: Liebigs are very easy to clean.
>
> MY downside: Should I ever need to clean it, it would not be a pull-through.

Sounds like a nice, long, stiff-bristled brush at about 3000rpm might be in
order :)

Which brings me back to a previously visited topic of cleaning. I mostly
poststill and of course, that entails lots of "flavorful" residue on the vapor
side of my condenser tubes...especially when doing a batch of Absinthe. I
can't even imagine trying to get all that stuff out of a worm if one were to do
a batch of something else, say rum or whisky, lest it contaminate the flavor at
the very least.
I use a modular setup where my components are either slide-together (sealed
with silicone tape or plastic wrap if even necessary) or assembled with unions.
My cleanliness/flavor-contamination paranoia drove me to make everything
detachable, and with no more than a single 90 degree bend. So, as you would
deduce, I have a bucket full of elbows (both 45 and 90) all with unions on each
end. Then, if I need more cooling than one condenser can handle, I just put
another one on...if space is limited, I can put a couple elbows between them
and make a 180 degree bend and tweak the angles to fit. Since I graduated to
the shotgun condenser, I haven't encountered a need for additional cooling
capacity, so my modular rig has condensed (no pun intended) to where I only
need to direct the distillate spout towards the collection vessel. It's all
disassembleable so I can get a soapy brush to just about every surface that
will contact the vapors and get as much remaining residue off from the previous
batch as possible.

Concerning a number of prior posts questioning their cloudy spirit, often the
suggested culprit is tails left over from the previous batch. If this is the
case, then wouldn't this dictate discombobulating the head/condenser between
each and every spirit run such that tails don't contaminate the subsequent
batches? However, it doesn't quite add up...would this also necessitate
commercial pot still setups to thoroughly clean their stills between all runs?
I just can't imagine that allowing any kind of efficient business. Are tails
really such a contamination potential? Do sufficient heads rinse the tails
gunk out maybe? Perhaps it's too much of the tails-y heads in the middle?

...or am I just being neurotic? :)

Trid
-neurotically yours
• ... ... spirit, often the ... this is the ... head/condenser between ... subsequent ... necessitate ... between all runs? ... business. Are tails ...
Message 13 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Trid <triddlywinks@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Concerning a number of prior posts questioning their cloudy
spirit, often the
> suggested culprit is tails left over from the previous batch. If
this is the
> case, then wouldn't this dictate discombobulating the
> each and every spirit run such that tails don't contaminate the
subsequent
> batches? However, it doesn't quite add up...would this also
necessitate
> commercial pot still setups to thoroughly clean their stills
between all runs?
> I just can't imagine that allowing any kind of efficient
> really such a contamination potential? Do sufficient heads rinse
the tails
> gunk out maybe? Perhaps it's too much of the tails-y heads in the
middle?
>
> ...or am I just being neurotic? :)
>
> Trid
> -neurotically yours
>

You're gonna give your brain a hernia, Trid. :)

The simplest method of keeping condensers clean between runs
is...household white VINEGAR. It's not strong enough to eat away
your copper, but it does keep it REAL shiny.

At one time or another I've used Liebigs, coils and crossflows.
Assuming you have made them so they can be detached, do this...

Liebigs: Plug the outlet end with a cork. Fill the tube with
vinegar. Plug the other end with another cork. Store it until
required.

Coils and Crossflows: Drop them in a bucket of vinegar, enough to
cover the condenser completely. Put a lid on the bucket. Store
until required.

It only takes overnight to remove any residues in the condensers.

In all cases, RINSE WITH FRESH WATER BEFORE USE, as the vinegar will
turn blue (Sweitzers reagent, not really dangerous but I wouldn't
drink it).

Cleaning is that simple.

Slainte!
regards Harry
• Forgot to mention...the blue vinegar cleaning solution is reusable. Throw it out when it starts getting too much gunk in it. I typically reuse it for about a
Message 14 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Forgot to mention...the blue vinegar cleaning solution is reusable.
Throw it out when it starts getting too much gunk in it. I typically
reuse it for about a year.

Slainte!
regards Harry
• ... What s the typical concentration that you use? Trid -humblest apologies for the brain hurty :)
Message 15 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- Harry <gnikomson2000@...> wrote:

> Forgot to mention...the blue vinegar cleaning solution is reusable.
> Throw it out when it starts getting too much gunk in it. I typically
> reuse it for about a year.
>
> Slainte!
> regards Harry

What's the typical concentration that you use?

Trid
-humblest apologies for the brain hurty :)
• ... Standard white table vinegar, it s 5% acetic acid. Use it neat. In Oz we buy cheap homebrand stuff from the supermarkets for about 50 cents per litre. I
Message 16 of 16 , Apr 6, 2007
• 0 Attachment
--- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, Trid <triddlywinks@...> wrote:
>
> What's the typical concentration that you use?
>
> Trid
> -humblest apologies for the brain hurty :)
>

Standard white table vinegar, it's 5% acetic acid. Use it neat. In
Oz we buy cheap homebrand stuff from the supermarkets for about 50
cents per litre. I get 5 x 4lt plastic containers of it about once a
year.

Slainte!
regards Harry
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.