Re: reflux still conversion to pot still
- Hi James
Ah this old chestnut...
Essentially, you built a reflux still, and are stuck with it. However
there are ways to detune this still, and changing collection and
running methods will get an output approximating that of a pot still.
As you suggest, removing the packing is a good start, although you
will still be getting a lot of separation in the column. Pity yours is
packed with broken glass- thats gonna be messy!
Other methods include running faster (ie more output per minute) than
what you do for a reflux run, which can be achieved in one of two
ways- more heat, or less cooling, but keep a watchful eye, as most
reflux stills are happy running in their fairly tight tolerances.
Another method is collecting further into the tails, and mixing the
whole lot back together to give a lower ABV product (say 60-70%). This
introduces more nasties(albeit in small amounts) but also more flavour.
Probably the simplest thing you can do is build another column (i know
the missus doesn't want you to spend more money, so just hide it from
her for a while, till she gets hooked on your juice). This should be
much shorter, with the condenser offset from the column (look at pot
still designs and you will get the idea.
I know a lot of people will have different ideas about this, but these
have worked for me.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jamesvarga2000" <saki@...> wrote:
> Look at me - just posted a message and already have a second :)
> Whats the best way of converting a reflux still to a pot still? I'm
> getting great results from my reflux - about 95% through the whole run
> - and all is going great. Its packed with broken safety glass which I
> thought would be a problem - but it seems to be working great. I'm in
> the mood for a little more flavour though and want to start working
> I thought of just removing the packing but didn't know if the column
> was too high - I also thought of taking a line off the column about a
> foot up the column and before the cooling lines but don't think I
> would get much output from that. Any thoughts?