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

RE: [new_distillers]I'm cooking, well almost

Expand Messages
  • Tony & Elle Ackland
    ... Hey thats really interesting to hear ! Can you describe a little more what the results were like each way, eg purity & flowrate (and was everything else
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >hi matt i have tried it both ways and the bottom
      >seems to be the way to go .

      Hey thats really interesting to hear ! Can you describe a little more what
      the results were like each way, eg purity & flowrate (and was everything
      else done the same) ?

      Were there any other advantages/disadvantages ? (eg did the "bottom"
      position "turn the still off" by itself better - I've heard this as a "pro"
      for putting them there.

      Tony
    • Bposs112@aol.com
      OK.i hope my input didnt confuse you . let me try to explain. in warm weather say sixty degrees or above i do the low tube. anything below this i go thru the
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 12, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        OK.i hope my input didnt confuse you . let me try to explain. in warm weather
        say sixty degrees or above i do the low tube. anything below this i go thru
        the top. like the rabbi said there is no perfectway to do this. it is by
        trial and error. i do this for fun and a hobby. if  i t ever gets to be a
        burden i will quit.
      • Bposs112@aol.com
        her again i say. i do a ten gallon wash out side different times of the year. depends on the temperature/humidity/barometer etc. dont get flustrated just
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 12, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          her again i say. i do a ten gallon wash out side different times of the year.
          depends on the temperature/humidity/barometer etc.  dont get flustrated just
          enjoy.
        • Mike Seaney
          Oh wow, looks like I opened a minor can of worms with the tube stuff, but thanks to you all for your comments and input. I obviously did not do my research
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 13, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Oh wow, looks like I opened a minor can of worms with the tube stuff,
            but thanks to you all for your comments and input. I obviously did not
            do my research properly. I got most of the plan via a book (Gert Strand)
            and it illustrates the still master. ( Ididnt come across this group
            until after I had actually done the drill work!! ) Fortunately though, I
            reckon I can run a batch or two with things as they are and then start
            on version 1.1 -( as the song says " things can only get better" ) or
            maybe I can just not use the lower tubes at all and run some through at
            the top without effecting it too much, we shall see. I'll let you know
            how its goes Thanks again...
            Regards, Mike
          • greeneyr@rocketmail.com
            Matt, The only reason I can see for using lower cooling is to return some of the liquid to the pot and reduce the amount of vapour going up the column. You
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 13, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Matt,

              The only reason I can see for using lower cooling is to return some
              of the liquid to the pot and reduce the amount of vapour going up the
              column. You could achieve the same by reducing the heat (and it would
              be more effective). If too much vapour tries to fight its way up
              through the packing then it pushes the decending liquid back up and
              you no longer have a pure fractionating column but something half way
              between a pot still and a column. (You get the same effect with too
              much packing). In both cases you normally get around 75-80% and the
              output often surges.

              So I suspect those who find the bottom cooling more effective (purer
              product) are trying to push too much up the column ---- the bottom
              tube is returning some back to the pot which leaves just enough to
              flow up the column and mix with the decending fluid from the top
              cooling --- so the bit between the bottom and top cooling does all
              the work. Just had an idea-- you probably could put a cooling coil in
              the pot and it would be as effective!!!!!!

              Most small commercial stills are electric and don't have any way of
              reducing the heat, so this might be their only way to reduce the
              volume of vapour.

              That's my best guess why they use bottom cooling, I'd turn down the
              heat and use only top cooling if you want to get near 95% --- and
              save some money by not using as much gas or electricity to heat the
              cooling water!. ;-) ;-)

              Rabbi


              --- In new_distillers@egroups.com, Matt <spore@p...> wrote:
              > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:44:44AM -0800, Robin Greeney wrote:
              > > Hi Matt,
              > > As far as I can recall it has always been the way to
              > > go. It provides a smooth temperature gradient along
              > > the column which is what you need. The column height
              > > effectively ends when it hits the first cooling
              > > tube..... all after that is ineffective!
              > >
              > > So why have a metre column and only use the first 20
              > > cm. ?????
              > >
              > > Just because the commercial world does something, it
              > > ain't necessarily right!
              > >
              > > Rabbi
              >
              > no no i was wondering ... why the use of lower cooling tubes? :-)
              >
              > --
              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
              -------
              > Matthew @
              psibercom
              > psibercom.org: doing pretty much nothing for the net since
              1994!
            • Bposs112@aol.com
              thats the SPIRIT mike
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 13, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                thats the  SPIRIT mike
              • ebarker@eoncc.com
                Yup, Get rid of the bottom cooling and reduce the heat. save some money on energy and get the same results. But you gotta have heat control. ... the ... would
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 13, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yup,

                  Get rid of the bottom cooling and reduce the heat.
                  save some money on energy and get the same results.
                  But you gotta have heat control.




                  --- In new_distillers@egroups.com, greeneyr@r... wrote:
                  > Matt,
                  >
                  > The only reason I can see for using lower cooling is to return some
                  > of the liquid to the pot and reduce the amount of vapour going up
                  the
                  > column. You could achieve the same by reducing the heat (and it
                  would
                  > be more effective). If too much vapour tries to fight its way up
                  > through the packing then it pushes the decending liquid back up and
                  > you no longer have a pure fractionating column but something half
                  way
                  > between a pot still and a column. (You get the same effect with too
                  > much packing). In both cases you normally get around 75-80% and the
                  > output often surges.
                  >
                  > So I suspect those who find the bottom cooling more effective (purer
                  > product) are trying to push too much up the column ---- the bottom
                  > tube is returning some back to the pot which leaves just enough to
                  > flow up the column and mix with the decending fluid from the top
                  > cooling --- so the bit between the bottom and top cooling does all
                  > the work. Just had an idea-- you probably could put a cooling coil
                  in
                  > the pot and it would be as effective!!!!!!
                  >
                  > Most small commercial stills are electric and don't have any way of
                  > reducing the heat, so this might be their only way to reduce the
                  > volume of vapour.
                  >
                  > That's my best guess why they use bottom cooling, I'd turn down the
                  > heat and use only top cooling if you want to get near 95% --- and
                  > save some money by not using as much gas or electricity to heat the
                  > cooling water!. ;-) ;-)
                  >
                  > Rabbi
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In new_distillers@egroups.com, Matt <spore@p...> wrote:
                  > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:44:44AM -0800, Robin Greeney wrote:
                  > > > Hi Matt,
                  > > > As far as I can recall it has always been the way to
                  > > > go. It provides a smooth temperature gradient along
                  > > > the column which is what you need. The column height
                  > > > effectively ends when it hits the first cooling
                  > > > tube..... all after that is ineffective!
                  > > >
                  > > > So why have a metre column and only use the first 20
                  > > > cm. ?????
                  > > >
                  > > > Just because the commercial world does something, it
                  > > > ain't necessarily right!
                  > > >
                  > > > Rabbi
                  > >
                  > > no no i was wondering ... why the use of lower cooling tubes? :-)
                  > >
                  > > --
                  > >
                  --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > -------
                  > > Matthew @
                  > psibercom
                  > > psibercom.org: doing pretty much nothing for the net since
                  > 1994!
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.