Silk City Distillers

No idea, but two things come to mind based on your question.

Don't forget to account for the condensate volume, primarily during heat up. Say, for example, you are using a 20hp boiler, you'll generate 34.5 lbs of condensate per hour per hp, so 690 pounds of condensate for a 1hr startup time. That is 82 gallons of condensate added to the still charge (this is probably a worst case scenario). Also consider the dilution impact, not only the initial still charge ABV, but the remaining alcohol as you go through the run. I would imagine in an alembic, it would result in a much steeper fall off towards tails. The biggest benefit of the approach is that it will be more efficient than a steam jacket. Downside is that you'll probably end up spending more on feed water pre-treatment for your boiler.

There is some good reading on this topic from the craft brewers. They seem to be further down this road with some good information available. I've seen estimates from them of about 2-6 bbl of wastewater per bbl of beer. Just make the assumption that your wash is beer and go from there. Assuming that condenser cooling will be a recirculation/chiller system, otherwise the numbers will be through the roof.

Take a look at table 2, second to last page:

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/jbchs/2012nahead/aop011_12.pdf

Ethyl alcohol, Aldehydes, Short chain esters (primarily ethyl esters like ethyl acetate), some small percentage of lower boiling alcohols, an even smaller percentage of higher boiling alcohols, water, etc, etc.

There are numerous factors that are going to impact the percentages. Type of still, if a column still, do you stack heads, are you tossing fores, what is your wash - grain, sugar, or fruit, yeast stress levels, width of your cuts, recycling tails, etc. There is a chart in Whiskey Technology (page 204 in my copy) that has the relative concentrations by run time. If you go through the online searches of the journals, you'll find some spirit-specific breakdowns - Whiskey, Brandy, Cachaca, etc (but be careful inferring too much from the studies that are looking at continuous columns). If you are working with fruit and treating with bisulfates, you'll have sulfur components in the heads fraction. If you are working with fruit you will have a higher methanol component in the heads fraction than you would with grain (caveats apply).

All said and done, the primary constituent by a very, very wide margin is going to be ethyl alcohol.

Does your continuous still handle solids?

Doesn't make sense. Are you using the equipment to make anything else? Is there a chance that you are seeing residual oils or tails coming through as you alternate distilling product? I'd imagine there would be a noticeable organoleptic impact as well. What else is going on? Are you going through any other sort of filtration or carbon after it leaves the still? Is it possible your bottles are dirty or fouled?

It's all just chemistry, so why just stop at synthetically aging? Just quit beating around the bush and go straight to molecular additives. If the end result is a some percentage of specific long chain esters, aldehydes, ketones, cyclic aromatics, phenolics, etc - why not just add those chemicals directly? Most every chemical you would need is available already, if not it's not a problem to have it made. You can have more control over the process, with a significantly higher precision, and potentially without fault. You can essentially build a product completely from scratch, tailored for a very specific profile. With GC, you can have the recipe of any spirit you care to mimic. We can build it, we have the technology.

"Hey, Barkeep, another Rum, and this time take it easy on the Isobutyl Butyrate, ok?"

What am I missing here?

Do we think artificially aged is going to be better received by consumers than artificially flavored? Maybe, does the word artificial even have a meaning to consumers today?

And what becomes of the inevitable race to the bottom? Without scarcity there is no price floor, without either of these things, what is to stop larger producers from simply taking over the market with scale? A 1,5l handle of "15 year old artificially X'ed Bourbon" on the retail shelf at Big Box Mart for $14.99? Even worse, god help us, what if it's good? How would anyone compete against that?

…probably by touting that they do it the old fashioned way. The big boys could quash this techno-approach in a second with a single marketing campaign - just call it an insult to the intelligence of the consumer. I'm pretty sure a 30 second spot on TV or a print ad saying that would resonate with consumers immediately, guys in dirty denim jeans swinging hammers, rolling barrels in rick houses, a dusty pat on the back, pickup truck and a dog. I can even see the tag line - "Because you deserve better". There is an inherent appeal to a hand made product, especially in the states. I'm not at all saying it's an insult, don't mistake that, but it's an approach I think it would be very easy for some to take. Is the irony here that the big boys become the "craft" in the industry? Talk about role reversal.

I'm not a luddite by any means, and I appreciate the technology here. The patent is certainly interesting.

It's only a matter of time. The frequency and severity of accidents is clearly increasing. With the recent explosive growth of the industry, this will reach critical mass, and if the authorities don't cry uncle, the insurers will. Then everyone is going to feel the pain. You better take your insurance guy out to a nice dinner, and make a donation to your local fire district.

While DISCUS clearly is an attempt at the larger commercial industry self-regulating. It's clear that the smaller craft producers have no appetite to attempt the same kind of self-regulation and policing. If the current flow of conversation on the interwebs is indicative, there is about a 100 to 1 ratio of "How cheaply can I start a distillery" to "What's the safest way" conversations, and this points to problems. Avoidance topics outnumber compliance topics just the same.

The few folks that have tried to start the conversation haven't really been successful. I really wish there were more conversations here about how to cost effectively meet the spirit and letter of the regulation, versus trying to sidestep it.

Most of us here want to invest, and invest in safety specifically - but want to do it in a way that makes sense. That's the information I'd love to have access to.

My comments come from baking a lot of bread...

Dark Rye flours tend to be whole grain flours, versus light or white rye which has the bran and germ removed (analogous to whole wheat flour vs white flour). If you are used to whole grains, go dark rather than light or white.

Pumpernickel should refer to the baking style and not the flour itself. I would confirm if it is just whole coarse ground rye. I've seen specially made "pumpernickel flours" that have had additives like cocoa, molasses, and caramel color already incorporated for ease of use - you probably don't want to be using that.

If you are interested in using a whole grain unmalted rye, if the pumpernickel doesn't have any additives, it's probably the closest you'll get. It should have a course grind which you might prefer, if you want finer - I'd ask the manufacturer, but the medium rye meal should be that.

Many of the small cast iron hydronic boilers that we are talking about here can run either as steam or hot water based on the trim and ancillary equipment. Our 16hp Weil McLain 80 Series can run as either steam or hot water based on how it is plumbed (granted it's a bit bigger). There is no difference in the boiler body itself, it's the ancillary equipment, water feeders, low water cutoffs, pressuretrol, plumbing, and condensate feed that are different.

Very easy to find Weil Mclain EG series cast iron boilers on the used market these days. Technically, the conversion between water and steam is a matter of removing the hydronic components, and bolting on the steam components. Likewise, it's relatively common to find somewhat larger used steam boilers in Oil trim in the Northeast, converting to natural gas is as easy as replacing the burner (and selling the oil burner for good money).

We got our boiler for free as well, came out of the basement of a church where it had gone unused for almost 10 years. They had converted from oil to gas something like two years later, and their contractor installed a brand new boiler right next to this one. They shut it down and let it sit, because it would be too expensive to remove and dispose of. When we asked, they were ecstatic to have it hauled away. Win for them, win for us.

That said, we can wrench and have family in the trades, if you can't, or don't, this route probably isn't for you.

Mike - What about something like Ozone or UV? Or are additives just more cost-effective in the long run?

Make one half the size, and half the price, and you'll have adoring fans everywhere.

Denatured alcohol is alcohol that has been tainted with an additive as to make it unsuitable for drinking.

Your equipment manufacturer should be providing you with boiler sizing specifications, or at least the necessary parameters for an engineer to size the boiler appropriately. Otherwise, assumptions will need to be made.

Approximately 1000-2000 BTU per gallon is the ballpark that I've seen from manufacturers. There are some that recommend even higher, although there have been a few folks here that have indicated that going under 1000 is probably a bad idea. Realize this range is wide enough to drive a truck through in your capacities - 1.2mbtu to 2.4mbtu (35-70hp). However, at that size, there is going to be little difference in total installation cost.

Staggering startup can significantly impact sizing, keep that in mind.

Correct, the temperature of a 250 degree liquid and 250 degree steam (15.15psig) are the same. However, the energy stored in 1 pound of each is different. Don't talk in volumes, we're not talking apples to apples, you need to talk in mass. A pound of water and a pound of steam - when boiled, a pound of water turns into a pound of steam, which turns into a pound of condensate (water). Why is volume irrelevant? The reason is that steam can flow faster through piping than water can. Typical steam velocity is around 100 feet per second for low pressure steam, maximum water velocity is like 5 feet per second. In addition, a water to water heat exchanger will generally need to be larger than a steam to water heat exchanger, so you can't assume they are operating within the same fixed volume (besides, steam will win if they do).

The bit you are missing is latent vs sensible heat, and the energy transferred as a result of the phase change from vapor to condensate, which is exactly the same energy required to turn the water into steam. So when that 1 pound of steam at 15psi condenses on the walls of the jacket or in the heat exchanger, it gives up all of the 1164 BTU to the transfer medium as part of the condensation process - this is a huge amount of energy. Then, as condensate, it also transfers heat. But, it is significantly less - which would be the same as with water, because it's not undergoing the phase change, you only have the sensible heat to work with. A pound of water at 15psi only has a total of 218 BTU/LB, and realistically, it can't give it all up (it would need to leave the jacket at 32'F to have given up all it's heat, not realistic - right). ASD mentioned it above, if the pound of water can only realistically give up 20-30BTU per pound, versus the 1164BTU per pound for steam. It's too early to do the math, but theoretically, you are probably need the water system to be sized more similarly to a fire sprinkler system main than a residential hydronic heating loop.

I still don't see how you are getting a 350,000BTU boiler to do the same work of a 2,000,000BTU boiler. The work is being done where the fuel is begin burned, everything else is just wiring the battery to the lightbulb. Even assuming 100% efficiency of the transfer (which is hogwash), 350000BTU/HR (boiler output, not boiler input) is only sufficient to take ~265 gallons from ~60F to ~212F in 1 hour time.

Find another plumber. The steam or water are not the power sources, they are only the energy transfer mechanisms from the fuel burner to the point where heat is needed.

Given our options, there is no heat transfer math that makes a 350kbtu burner equal a 2,000kbtu burner, even if you had ideal heat transfer (no losses). This certainly won't happen with water, because we know the heat transfer efficiency of steam is better in comparison. How can a worse heat transfer mechanism result in less input heat being required? It can't.

At 15psig, steam will have 5 times the heat carrying capacity of water, 218btu/lb vs 1164btu/lb. Even if you were to run it at higher pressures and boiling points with the water, at best you might be pushing the water/glycol to about 260btu/lb. In addition, steam has a higher heat transfer coefficient than water and water/glycol mixtures. Not to mention that glycol mixtures have an even lower specific heat than straight water, which means they perform even worse than water does. So the "chemicals" are a trade off, higher BP for less heat carrying capacity. Steam can move more heat from point A to point B, and it can do it with higher efficiency.

The cost for a water vs steam boiler of the same size (hell even the same model) is not going to be significantly different (For example, something like a cast-iron boiler that can be used for either hydronic or steam). Sure, the steam trim is different than the water trim, but we're not talking night and day differences in the cost of any of this equipment.

Perhaps you can make do with only 350kbtu of input heat, but I suspect you will be incredibly disappointed with the heat up times. Probably take you 3 hours to bring 1000 liters to a boil, if it ever boils. In addition, jackets, coils, and heat exchangers that are using water are going to have to be larger/longer than their steam counterparts.

There is a reason steam is so widely used for this purpose. It has nothing to do with doing things the old way.

Most of the safety approaches focus on eliminating ignition sources, because the other two requirements for a fire or explosion: fuel and oxygen, are a given in our environment.

That's the crux of the dissonance. How can you simultaneously focus on eliminating ignition sources when a direct-fired system specifically requires an ignition source to work.

The whole notion of NEC 500, classified areas and explosion proof electrics is based on minimizing the potential for the device to become an ignition source, and if it does become an ignition source, that it will detonate in a way that will limit the overall damage. Any AHJ in question is immediately going to go where precedence has been set, like it or not.

So on one side, you have folks that have spent thousands of dollars (or tens of thousands) on putting in place a Class I Division 1 Group D (Explosion Proof) infrastructure to minimize ignition sources, and on the other side, you've got folks saying direct-fired is perfectly safe.

Nary the twain shall meet.

Larry at Stilldragon has a very nice triclamp parrot system.

My small ARO double diaphragm runs fine on a small portable nailing compressor, and it is much larger than the Flojet. Per the spec, it only requires 1scfm at 40psi, 2.2scfm at 100psi. You aren't building any appreciable back pressure in a transfer situation. If finding a location for a compressor is an issue, you can always run it off a co2 tank and regulator, a 20 pound tank could probably run that for 2 or 3 hours straight.

Roll them on the forks of your fork lift.

Should consider that your contractor and equipment distributor have a solid relationship and working experience with the equipment and brand you are considering, that's critical for long-term success and support. To some extent, a boiler is a boiler, but the devil is in the details. Once you have a trusted contractor (which is equally, if not more important), I'd give their recommendations some weight as well.

Miura? The Lamborghini of boilers? Nice but the starting point of entry is something like 1.5mbtu, that's a big machine.

Out in these parts, Fulton is very popular, and Hurst somewhat as well.

We have a Zurn system with a 6" epoxy coated cast iron grate. 4" seems positively tiny, and I'd imagine the cost differential once you consider the total cost of plumbing and construction, would probably be minimal. Go bigger. Whatever system you use, ensure the load capacity of the grate and grate system is well above the weight of your fork lift. We had initially thought the forklift and pallet jack wouldn't at all be on the drain, but during build out and setup, the forklift appears to have fallen into a love affair with the drain.

Dunno, that could be a pretty darn tasty breakfast for those cold, early mornings in the distillery.

My wife has a killer recipe for candied bacon bourbon shortbread cookies.

+2 on the blockage concerns.

27 CFR 19.131

Brew pubs can sell as part of the licensed premise, as can wineries. Perhaps time for a change?

Oatmeal in the carter head basket doesn't sound like a fun time