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

Re: 2" or 3" tower

Expand Messages
  • abbababbaccc
    The configuration I was running was an early version of Thor s hammer LM-E-ARC. I have lately concentrated on 2 column so the memory may be a bit blurry.
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The configuration I was running was an early version of Thor's hammer
      LM-E-ARC. I have lately concentrated on 2" column so the memory may
      be a bit blurry. Anyway, what I got out was completely neutral 95.6%
      ethanol, no heads or tails as it goes with hammerhead and E-ARC. The
      point is that the speed was relatively low (IIRC ~2 liters/hour) for
      3kW I was using and the yield was also quite low as well as over half
      a liter was held by the packing while my test mashes had only 1.5
      liters of ethanol+heads+tails. Of course the results were quite
      inaccurate due to the small amount of alcohol I had. I managed to
      improve the column efficiency some but then I decided to switch
      experiments to 2" platform as it is more user friendly for small
      scale experiments.

      Lately I have toyed with the idea of switching to 3" columns. That
      should be a good compromise as 4" stuff is a bit overkill for hobby
      distillers. Heavy, expensive and powering it up requires two separate
      circuits + several heating elements.

      Well, we shall see what I can come up with. The experimentation time
      is somewhat limited nowadays :(

      Cheers, Riku

      --- In new_distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Sherman" <pintoshine@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Riku, you are by far the most advanced expert in the field of column
      > tech that I know. The problem is that without exact duplication of
      > your equipment and processes, I cannot duplicate your results as I
      > suspect many others can't.
      >
      > I was only speaking from my own experiences and If I knew where to
      > improve the column I operate, whose design is the result of at least
      > ten variations over 25 years, then I would be eager for
      improvements.
      > My column is actually 90mm ID because it is schedule 10, 3" pipe.
      This
      > is a lot larger than normal 3" copper. Since I am more sensitive to
      > the mercaptans I tend to have a higher bar to meet. It isn't how
      much
      > the column holds it is how much separation that can be had that I
      was
      > referring to. And it does take a lot of alcohol in my column to get
      > good equalization and throughput with a decent yield of heart cut.
      > Maybe we are not comparing apples to apples. Sure I can use a few
      > liters of wash to get 95% but it isn't going to meet my standards.
      > Just because it can sink my hydrometer to 95% or more that doesn't
      > mean it is clean because some of the congeners are lighter than
      > ethanol and some are heavier but simply removing the water doesn't
      > remove them. So all I was referring to was having enough ethanol
      that
      > the heads can be separated off and the heart can have a sufficient
      run
      > time to be worth the effort along with a distinct tails cut.
      > So maybe the criteria I was using was different than yours.
      >
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.