jocko

So what is the end recommendation? I read through these comments but it was all over the map.   I need to get some pumps now.  One cart pump for CIP/beer transfer & CIP, one for spirits.  Preferably spirit pump on cart as well, I would think.  

My two cents:  I would not pump into the top of the column, and I would not expect what your attempting to speed anything up as you've not changed the amount of energy you can impart on the wash.

If you were going to attempt to pump in warm/hot wash, I would pump into the kettle, but pass through a heat exchanger on the way in.  That and upgrade your elements which seem to be vastly undersized. 

Kindred, how much headspace in your storage vessel during the 5 weeks on gin?

Not sure why the assumption is that this is intended to allow you to leave the still unattended. It’s intended to demonstrate safety-first thinking to the fire department, the insurance company and to guests and employees.

Why would desireng to have redundancy imply a desire to leave this still unattended? 

So my insurance company and fire dept can rest easy if I promise not to ever leave the still unattended. 

In a closed loop cooling water system, the pump is a single point of failure.  Pump fails and you've got the still cranking out ethanol vapor. What are people doing to protect against a failure?  Two pumps?  On separate circuits?  

Not a 4+16 situation, but an 8+8+8... I've run some pretty heavily flavored stuff through an 8-plate column numerous times (3+).  Very little heads cut, but cut tails only on the last run.  Pretty darn neutral after three runs.  

What is your base spirit?  NGS?

I am designing our closed loop cooling system and would like to build in some protection should the power fail and the pumps stopped pumping water to the still.

I am thinking that putting a latching selenoid to automatically bring in city water should a power failure occur.  Latching valves/selenoids automatically open (or close) when the power goes out.  To keep city water out of my cooling loop (dilute glycol or change the water chemistry that might be set to keep bacterial growth out, etc.) I could even have check valves (or a "normally open" selenoid to shut off when power fails) to keep city water purely going to the still, then back to the drain once it's been through the condenser/dephleg, keeping closed loop cooling water intact. 

Thoughts?   Anyone done this?  Seems like a very inexpensive way to address concerns about what happens when the power fails, as the still will have enough energy to keep producing vapor for a while after the power fails, even if the boiler shuts off. 

In my reading, globe valves are the way to go, one's that have good proportional control.  I can't find the original threads that I read last year.  I believe @Silk City Distillers posted some pictures of his globe valve setup.  

McMaster has some that seem very inexpensive, so inexpensive that I'm conccerned, as Iv'e seen some that are 10x the price.  For my still I only need a 1.5" valve.   You need to hook two of them up in parrallel, one for macro control (a big one that lets 100% of line capacity through, and then a smaller one for fine control.  On mine, the plan is to have a 1.5" macro globe valve and a 3/4" micro globe valve.  Come up to heat on the macro, then open up the micro and shut off the macro.  

https://www.mcmaster.com/valves/for-use-with~steam/valve-type~globe/

All,

Assume many of you may know this, but if not, I got this email from DISCUS today:

------------------

We’re pleased to announce that the Bureau will publish the long-awaited American Single Malt Whisky standard of identity notice of proposed rulemaking tomorrow in the Federal Register. Comments in this rulemaking will be due on September 27^th. 

In this rulemaking, TTB is proposing to amend the whisky standard of identity in § 5.143(c) by adding American Single Malt Whisky as a type of whisky in paragraph (15). TTB is proposing that American Single Malt Whisky could be stored in any oak barrel (used, uncharred new, or charred new) not exceeding 700 liters, as the American Single Malt Whiskey Commission and petitioners had requested. Of note, though, it does appear that TTB has not expressly incorporated the allowance for the use of grains other than barley if appropriately disclosed on the label (e.g., American Single Malt Rye Whisky), which we have advocated for in the past (and is supported by the American Single Malt Whiskey Commission). 

TTB’s proposed American Single Malt Whiskey definition is as follows: 

§ 5.143 Whisky.
(b) * * * “American single malt whisky” must be distilled entirely at one U.S. distillery, and must be mashed, distilled, and aged in the United States.

If finalized, this amendment to the TTB regulations would revoke by operation of regulation any COLA that uses the term “American single malt whisky” as a designation for a distilled spirits product that does not meet the proposed standard of identity. TTB notes that they have searched their COLA database and do not believe that this rulemaking will affect any existing labels. To minimize the adverse effect on industry members who hold COLAs for labels that conflict with the proposed “American single malt whisky” designation and that would therefore be revoked by operation of regulation, however, TTB states that they could allow for a time-limited use up of such labels by delaying the effective date of the rule establishing this designation. Additionally, TTB specifically seeks comments on the impact on current producers, including whether this rulemaking would affect any existing labels. TTB notes that distillers currently using the designations “malt whisky,” “American malt whisky,” “whisky distilled from malt mash,” or “American whisky distilled from malt mash” on their labels may continue to do so.

In addition to comments on the proposed definition, TTB specifically seeks feedback on the following questions:

• Noting that other whisky standards do not incorporate size restrictions for barrels, is a 700-liter limit for oak barrels for aging American single malt whisky necessary or appropriate? 

• What impact, if any, would this new standard of identity have on current producers of malt whisky?

• If TTB adopts this proposed amendment, and if any previously approved labels are impacted, for how long should TTB allow the use of previously approved labels for American single malt whisky that do not meet the new standard of identity before they are revoked by operation of regulation?

• Is it appropriate that the new standard of identity allows the use of used, uncharred new, and charred new oak barrels?

• Should TTB amend its regulations to allow for the designation “straight” to be used with American Single Malt Whisky?

• Should the use of coloring, flavoring, or blending materials be allowed in the production of American single malt whisky? If so, what coloring, flavoring, or blending materials are “customarily employed” in the production of American single malt whisky, in accordance with 27 CFR 5.155? Please provide any available evidence of their use.

• Should TTB amend its regulations to allow for mixtures of American single malt whisky to be labeled as “blended American single malt whisky,” similar to how TTB regulations allow for blended Scotch whisky and blended Canadian whisky to be labeled, respectively, “blended Scotch whisky” and “blended Canadian whisky”?

• On February 9, 2022, the Department of the Treasury released a report, “Competition in the Markets for Beer, Wine, and Spirits,” which was produced in response to Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy” (86 FR 36987, July 9, 2021). Would the addition of a standard of identity for American Single Malt Whisky affect competition in the alcohol beverage market?

I may be overthinking this... on my dephlegmator and condenser, there are two water inputs on the bottom and two outputs on the top.  I see many people only use one of each of these rather than both.

It would seem you would guarantee better water flow, more consistent cooling by splitting off the input and output and using both ports.  It would seem like you might get hotter and colder spots within the dephlegmator and condenser if you only used one port, and water leaving before it's had maximum contact opportunity in the vessel. 

On our pilot still, I have it on both ports.  But, I am switching over to use the Danfoss valve setup that Paul (https://adiforums.com/profile/3459-southernhighlander/) sells, and it will add to the plumbing complexity.  Thoughts?  Anybody have feedback on having tried it both ways?  Trying to conserve water & energy by doing.

There's a great thread on here that you wll learn a lot from (I did). 

I'm not debating the value of grounding. I'm asking for real world feedback on what's going to be the most helpful bonding access points, and if anyone has an SOP that they train new distillery staff with.

DISCUSS, which is quite high level, "All piping and tanks used for the storage or processing of flammable liquids should be properly bonded and grounded in accordance with NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity."  Piping and tanks are relatively easy.  Storage, transfer, proceessing, etc., becomes quite a different thing. Based on tight space requirements, you could end up using whatever available spaces exist for whatever task needs to be completed at a given time.

So, wondering what people are doing, what they wish they would have done when they had a blank slate and things are relatively cheap and easy to do.  And, whatever SOPs they have that are specific to mitigating ignition risks from static in your daily tasks.  

They have provided zero input nor are they requesting it.  I want to do it anyway and seeking guidance on best practices from people actually doing it on a daily basis during production if possible. 

Hello!  We are going to start electrical work for the distillery space soon, and I want to make sure I have bonding points at the right spots.  I've read as many posts as I could find on it here, but there's not a lot of specifics.

I am thinking of having a metal rod along the walls in the distillery production space, and then clamp to every vessel (the still, fermenters -- eeven though it seems silly I hear that some places demand it, etc.) and then have some bolts welded to bonded equipment near where pumps will be used. I can just clip to a bonded piece of equipment.

What about in barrel storage area (where I will likely be doing bottling, etc) as well. 

Do people bond each vessel, every device every time?  Like, a storage contain than you might raise with a forklift to gravity fill low wines into the still?  Or the ExpresFill machine?  When is plugging something into a grounded outlet enough?  

I've been to quite a few distilleries at this point, and cannot ever recall much bonding.  Curious if someone might share an SOP around bonding that is used to train new staff?  

On 7/19/2022 at 7:20 AM, 38° said:

We use Tilt Pro to monitor our fermentation. Our tanks are open and 500 gallons. Much larger than that might not work but we like them for our process.

https://tilthydrometer.com/products/tilt-pro-wireless-hydrometer-and-thermometer

Curious how you fish the Tilt Pro out of the fermenter?  Some of our tanks are 20' tall.  Do you attach to a hook inside a port?

That is the exact area that I was concerned about. Especially if you are really cutting back on flow.

I can now see from your photos that your setup does force contact because after the probe the line rises above the probe.  

I know this problem appears to resolved, but I'm putting together the same thing right now.  I have the Danfoss valve and and assembling necessary fittings. 

It occurs to me that, based on Paul's diagram, the Danfoss probe may not be entirely submerged in water coming off of the condenser, particularly if the flow is low.  It seems that there is a strong possibility for air being trapped near the probe, and water simply flowing by/on the probe, not submerging it.  The Danfoss instructions say that the probe needs to be submerge as much as possible in the liquid.

I would think that a trap just after the probe that would force the water up on the probe before leaving would gaurantee excellent constant contact of the probe with the water no matter how small the flow is.  Unfortunately, I am unable to upload photos for some reason, or I'd post my diagram of what I am thinking of. 

Make sense?  Thoughts?

Thanks so much!

Kindred Spirits, yes 25HP is oversized for the 1500L, by design.  We will eventually add a mash cooker and maybe a vodka still at one point so wanted to make sure I didn't undersize it immediately.  The boiler has a really good turndown. I am working with a boiler installation firm but we are going to have our (certified) welder do the steam piping. 

Just want to make sure the heating side is properly controlled.  I know on the pilot still (50 gal Bain Marie w/elements), being able to control the energy input in very small increments makes a huge difference in overall control.  I *think* the 1.5" ball for getting up to temp and then the 3/4" for finer control will do the trick but wanted some feedback/validation.  Do people put a pressure gauge just prior to the still (after the globe valves?)... I've been to a number of distilleries but don't recall seeing one -- how do you know exactly where you're at from a steam input level?

SlickFloss, we have specd out a condensate return pump that will have all traps gravity flowing to it (to a 2" return line which will gravity into the return).  So a trap right at the steam out/condensate line?

it's a jacketed 1500L hybrid still.  25HP low pressure boiler.  This is our only large still right now, so stripping and spirit runs.  

Did you find any sources?

Hello!  I have a brewery with direct fire brewhouse and HLT.  This steam stuff is new to me.

I've been reading these pages quite a bit and appreciate everyone's knowledgable commentary.  I tried to upload a drawing I did but I cannot upload the image for some reason. 

The still has a 1.5" steam input line, and I'll have a 3" header and a 2" drop.  I am thinking that having a reducer to 1.5" just before a 1.5" T.   The T would be 1.5" straight through with a 3/4" out the side.  The 1.5" straight through will go to a 1.5" globe valve for "macro" control -- to bring the still up to temp.  The 3/4" will go to a 3/4" globe valve then rejoin the 1.5" line below the 1.5" globe valve. This is my "micro" control for once I'm at temp and want to throttle down the steam.

So my questions: 

- Is 3/4" a good size for the "micro" globe valve?

- What is a good manufacturer for the globe valves?  What material should these valves be made of?  Any recommended models? 

- Should I be reducing the steam like just before the globe valve?

- I assume I don't need a trap below these valves, because it's going right into the still after the valves, and the still is sort of a giant trap. 

- what else should I be asking?