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

RE: [Distillers] Protein Skimmer was Re: Rum!

Expand Messages
  • Ackland, Tony (CALNZAS)
    ... Just don t strip too much of the alcohol out of the wash with the air. It probably wouldn t be much loss in such a short time period anyhow. Could even
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > 3. Now we turn the fermenter into a protein skimmer. The way I see
      > to do this, is insert a couple of limewood airstones into the wash,
      > and let it bubble furiously, The foam will go to the top. You will
      > need some weights to keep the airstones on the bottom - some
      > stainless steel would be perfect. After 30 minutes or so,

      Just don't strip too much of the alcohol out of the wash with the air. It probably wouldn't be much loss in such a short time period anyhow. Could even minimise it by "recycling" the air - eg have your air intake from above the wash, and keep the lot basically still under cover.

      Tony
    • mattdistiller
      ... Definitley - I would do it the same way I airate a wash before pitching the yeast - The fermenter lid is on tight, and the air hose goes through the
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > Just don't strip too much of the alcohol out of the wash
        > with the air. It probably wouldn't be much loss in such
        > a short time period anyhow. Could even minimise it by
        > "recycling" the air - eg have your air intake from above
        > the wash, and keep the lot basically still under cover.

        Definitley - I would do it the same way I airate a wash before
        pitching the yeast - The fermenter lid is on tight, and the air hose
        goes through the grommet which holds the airlock - that way there is
        minimal losses through the tiny hole - and the air pump sits straight
        on the lid, so therefor pumps the alcohol vapour back in anyway!

        So what do you think of the idea as a whole?

        Matt (Bris)
      • AuntyEthyl
        Matt, Thanx for the excellent rum posts.. Just one more question... (There s always one) De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in the column, did
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Matt,

          Thanx for the excellent rum posts..

          Just one more question... (There's always one)
          De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in
          the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top or
          spread throughout the column.?

          And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on what
          difference it would make having the scrubbies at top,
          bottom or spread out through the column, would make to
          the product.?

          AuntyEthyl



          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
          http://sports.yahoo.com
        • mattdistiller
          ... One? Or two? ;-) ... They were packed as normal, so there was an empty space at the top doing not much . ... Um.... Tony? ;-) My guess... If the
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            > Just one more question... (There's always one)

            One? Or two? ;-)

            > De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in
            > the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top or
            > spread throughout the column.?

            They were packed as normal, so there was an empty space at the top
            doing 'not much'.

            > And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on what
            > difference it would make having the scrubbies at top,
            > bottom or spread out through the column, would make to
            > the product.?

            Um.... Tony? ;-)

            My guess...

            If the scrubbers were spread over the whole column, I think the
            purity would be higher than if they were packed as 'normal', and so
            leaving an empty space. My logic for this,is that there is still a
            good surface area for reaction, and hence no 'wasted' space. In the
            normal packing, while the surface are is more per unit volume, it
            doesn't have the height.

            The empty space at the top or bottom in the 'normal' packing
            density.... I think the gap would be better at the top. At the
            bottom it becomes just a part of the boiler in effect, so therefor
            doesn't do anything. When the space is at the top, while there is
            no 'reaction' occuring at the top, there is space for the purified
            vapours to sit, and so I feel would be more use for it at the top
            than the bottom.

            That all said, I don't really know - Feel free to diagree with me!

            Matt (Bris)
          • Tony & Elle Ackland
            ... likewise, I d just be guessing. The theory doesn t help here. Can t really say whether the gap would be better top or bottom - you can dream up arguments
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Um.... Tony? ;-)

              likewise, I'd just be guessing. The theory doesn't help here. Can't
              really say whether the gap would be better top or bottom - you can dream up
              arguments for either case.

              I'd rather that the remaining scrubbers were instead spread out more
              sparsely, to fill the volume. Its likely to give a lesser efficiency than
              a properly packed column, but might (??) be better than a half-n-half
              version, as its still encouraging the liquid to drip from spot to spot,
              rather than doing a big rush through the unpacked space. It also just
              gives a bit more physical space for any different species / concentrations
              to stay apart from each other.

              Coupled with this though has to be how much you've decreased the reflux
              ratio by - for an example, if you dudn't remove much packing, and kept the
              reflux rate high, you may not notice much "detuning". When I run my still
              for rum, I keep the same packing in it, but really knock back the reflux
              ratio heaps - like you - into the high 70's (C)

              Tony
              http://homedistiller.org
            • AuntyEthyl
              Hi again Matt, Thanx yet again for an excellent reply. I agree with what you said as far as de-tuned packing placement is concerned. I just had *one* more
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi again Matt,

                Thanx yet again for an excellent reply.

                I agree with what you said as far as de-tuned packing
                placement is concerned.

                I just had *one* more question..

                As column packing height has a direct correlation to
                the number of theoretical plates, what was the height
                of your packing in your 50mm column.?

                Cheers
                AuntyEthyl

                --- mattdistiller <distiller@...> wrote:
                >
                > > Just one more question... (There's always one)
                >
                > One? Or two? ;-)
                >
                > > De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies
                > in
                > > the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top
                > or
                > > spread throughout the column.?
                >
                > They were packed as normal, so there was an empty
                > space at the top
                > doing 'not much'.
                >
                > > And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on
                > what
                > > difference it would make having the scrubbies at
                > top,
                > > bottom or spread out through the column, would
                > make to
                > > the product.?
                >
                > Um.... Tony? ;-)
                >
                > My guess...
                >
                > If the scrubbers were spread over the whole column,
                > I think the
                > purity would be higher than if they were packed as
                > 'normal', and so
                > leaving an empty space. My logic for this,is that
                > there is still a
                > good surface area for reaction, and hence no
                > 'wasted' space. In the
                > normal packing, while the surface are is more per
                > unit volume, it
                > doesn't have the height.
                >
                > The empty space at the top or bottom in the 'normal'
                > packing
                > density.... I think the gap would be better at the
                > top. At the
                > bottom it becomes just a part of the boiler in
                > effect, so therefor
                > doesn't do anything. When the space is at the top,
                > while there is
                > no 'reaction' occuring at the top, there is space
                > for the purified
                > vapours to sit, and so I feel would be more use for
                > it at the top
                > than the bottom.
                >
                > That all said, I don't really know - Feel free to
                > diagree with me!
                >
                > Matt (Bris)
                >
                >


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
                http://sports.yahoo.com
              • mattdistiller
                I replied, but the email seems to have got lost in the ether, so I will try again. ... No problems - I am only shooting from the hip though! ... Just one? ;-)
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I replied, but the email seems to have got lost in the ether, so I
                  will try again.

                  > Thanx yet again for an excellent reply.

                  No problems - I am only shooting from the hip though!

                  > I just had *one* more question..

                  Just one? ;-)

                  > As column packing height has a direct correlation to
                  > the number of theoretical plates, what was the height
                  > of your packing in your 50mm column.?

                  Normally, for vodka, my column is packed to 1.2 m with 18 large
                  scrubbers. For the 'de-tuned' run, it is 0.9m with 12 scrubbers.

                  I think not only is the packed height important, but also the packed
                  density. If it is assumed that all s/s scrubbers have similar thread
                  sizes, this can easily be calculated by weighing the scrubbers, and
                  calculating the volume of the packed height. Density=weight/volume.
                  If the assumption that all s/s scrubbers have similar thread sizes is
                  true, then the density is directly proportional to the surface area,
                  but a lot easier to calculate!

                  My scrubbers weigh 14.1g each (I just weighed them all and divided it
                  out), so 18 scrubbers weigh 0.2546kg and 12 scrubbers weigh 0.1697kg.

                  The volume of the 50mm column is easy = pi * r^2 * height
                  1.2m - volume=0.002356 m^3
                  0.9m - volume=0.001767 m^3

                  So the density=weight/volume:
                  1.2m with 18 scrubbers = 108.1 kg/m^3
                  0.9m with 12 scrubbers = 96.1 kg/m^3

                  So, in my case, the 1.2m packing height, whilst being higher packed,
                  is also more densely packed (=more surface area) - I guess because
                  the weight of the scrubbers compress the ones below? Whatever the
                  reason, the difference is over 10%, so there could definitely be an
                  effect.

                  I see a really neat experiment that could be done here, with the same
                  packed height column, and different densities (=surface area) of
                  scrubbers. There has to be an optimal packing density (=surface
                  area), which would probably be fairly easy to work out through
                  experimentation.

                  OK. Enough from me. I hope that answers your question in a long
                  handed way!

                  Matt (Bris)
                • Tony & Elle Ackland
                  ... Hurray ! something a bit more precise than the breath through test Tony
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 6, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I see a really neat experiment that could be done here, with the same
                    > packed height column, and different densities (=surface area) of
                    > scrubbers. There has to be an optimal packing density (=surface
                    > area), which would probably be fairly easy to work out through
                    > experimentation.

                    Hurray ! something a bit more precise than the "breath through" test

                    Tony
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.