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

Re: [Distillers] condensor

Expand Messages
  • Trid
    ... 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 1 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?
      >
      > http://homedistiller.org/detail/STILLHEAD.doc

      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
    • Jeff Peterson
      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 2 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?
        > >
        > > http://homedistiller.org/detail/STILLHEAD.doc
        >
        > 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
        >
      • Trid
        ... 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 3 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
        • Harry
          ... 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 4 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
            >


            Before you get too carried away, Trid. Your original answer was
            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
          • Robert Thomas
            ... ... How s that snipping for efficient use of bandwidth! Anyway, I have seen things that look like archimedes screws that insert into pipe
            Message 5 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
            • sn_cur
              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 6 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
              • Trid
                ... 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 7 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!!!
                • 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
                  Message 8 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
                    the coolant, the flow of the coolant...yadda, yadda, yadda.
                    ...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
                  • sn_cur
                    Thanks for your considered and interesting responses, Trid ... The greater the flow, the greater the turbulence and the less laminar flow. Turbulence is
                    Message 9 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
                      understand it real well. I could be wrong about this stuff.

                      >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
                    • Robert Hubble
                      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 10 of 16 , Apr 5, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Trid,

                        Comments inline

                        Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller





                        >From: Trid <triddlywinks@...>
                        >Reply-To: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
                        >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
                        https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2bbb&disc=y&vers=925&s=4056&p=5117
                      • Trid
                        ... 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 11 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
                        • Harry
                          ... ... spirit, often the ... this is the ... head/condenser between ... subsequent ... necessitate ... between all runs? ... business. Are tails ...
                          Message 12 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
                            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
                            >




                            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
                          • 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 13 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
                            • Trid
                              ... What s the typical concentration that you use? Trid -humblest apologies for the brain hurty :)
                              Message 14 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 :)
                              • Harry
                                ... 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 15 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.