The Spirit 'Safe' (was) Re: cuts by temp vs. abv
- Dang it Mav,
Yas caught me lol.
just joking of course...
See: http://heaven-hill.com/virtualTour/virtualTour.html from the
Info base, and click on button 8 in the pictures.
Vino es Veritas,
Hi Jim, when I saw your reply I had a really good laugh, or is it,
LoL. Thanks, I needed it!
Hey, thanks for the link to that distillery, Heaven Hill Distillery,
and Harry, thanks mate, for pointing out some things that might have
been missed by the members of this group. Wow, aeration, might be a
good way to mix things up, and hopefully do some ageingJ
Jim that picture I linked to was from the Bruichladdich Distillery,
check out the link, (Below), click on the bottom pic on the left.
Yes there is a Duncan and Jim testing the single malt new make
spirit. Master Distillers must have some access to the spirit
(control Box) safe to in-print "their" style or to carry on the same
old, same old, of course.
> Jim that picture I linked to was from the Bruichladdich Distillery,They sure do. Notice the "Big Old Brass Locks" (BOBL's) are missing.
> check out the link, (Below), click on the bottom pic on the left.
> Yes there is a Duncan and Jim testing the single malt new make
> spirit. Master Distillers must have some access to the spirit
> (control Box) safe to in-print "their" style or to carry on the same
> old, same old, of course.
- Hi, folks,
I was wrong, of course, in the section I have copied from below and
"When liquid falls down the tube, the same amount
of liquid flows over the top of the flask, because
of the weight of the incoming liquid. Gravity, not the
'application of force,
above the level of the force of gravity',
(just my description, not from some professor)
which we know as 'pressure'."
There are TWO separate possible forces at work (or not at work as
the case may be) here, gravity, and
'pressure', which we usually know as the presence of a force above
the level of ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.
The physics professor's job is quite safe!
--- In email@example.com, "gff_stwrt" <gff_stwrt@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "rye_junkie1" <rye_junkie@>
> > --- In email@example.com, "gff_stwrt" <gff_stwrt@>
> > >
> > > Hi, folks,
> > > I don't claim any expertise here; but my suggestion to run
> > > product into the bottom of the flask was to ensure continuous
> > > of the entering product with that already in the flask.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > The Baker
> > As long as there was a break between the output and the tube that
> > into the flask so as not to build back pressure that makes more
> > to me now.
> > Mason
> Hi, folks,
> Just kicking this around....
> These systems (reflux stills ) are unpressurised.
> Open to the air at the top of the column.
> With no, if you will,'forward' pressure there can be no
> 'back' pressure.
> With no pressure the product FALLS (travels purely by
> means of gravity) to the lowest point.
> This lowest point is the level of the product in the flask.
> To re-phrase this; with the tube carrying the
> product from the still reaching nearly to the
> bottom of the hydrometer flask, the height of
> the liquid in this tube, in an unpressurised system, will
> be the same as the liquid in the flask.
> When liquid falls down the tube, the same amount
> of liquid flows over the top of the flask, because
> of the weight of the incoming liquid. Gravity, not the
> 'application of force,
> above the level of the force of gravity',
> (just my description, not from some professor)
> which we know as 'pressure'.
> (The only way, just possibly, there could be a
> partial 'back pressure' is where the diameter of the pipe
> was inadequate for the volume of the product --
> thin pipe, high volume; and that would be a design fault,
> a problem/ potential problem already in existence).
> And of course the tube must rest ABOVE the bottom of
> the flask and not ON the bottom or flow would be restricted!)
> In the case of a pot still, probably the break you
> suggest is a good idea(as they are not open to the atmosphere
> except at the outlet end) though in theory it might
> not be necessary. I don't know enough to say,
> but it would seem a wise precaution.