Silk City Distillers

Viscocity of honey is about 10x that of oil, I don't see how you'd pump honey with anything other than a gear reduced positive displacement pump with a VFD, Waukesha or similar. I'd also imagine you'd have problems with collapsing the suction hose too. Bucket brigade is probably more realistic for honey than pumping, especially if you are buying it by the bucket. Heck, even a small forklift if you are using drums is going to be less expensive, and you can use the forklift for other things. Anyone that can afford to buy a tote of honey these days can probably afford the gear to move it. What's a tote of honey these days, $10k?

Assuming you aren't actually moving honey - something like a 1/2 or 3/4" double diaphragm pump, teflon balls and seals, body in whatever ethanol compatible material you like. Heck, you've got the air already. They are super light, and plenty reliable given you aren't pumping solids. You could probably get by with a 1/2" pump if taking 5-10 minutes to pump your 300 liter volumes isn't a big deal. But you can control your pumping speed and output pressure with an air regulator, so there isn't any problem with running a larger 3/4" pump slower. At those volumes I don't think you need anything near the capacity of a 1" pump. You can occasionally find a full teflon pump, body, balls, seals on ebay for around $500, something like a Yamada DP-20F. This is the cadillac of diaphragm pumps, with a list price near $4,000, so be happy they depreciate terribly. However they can't run at the higher pressures that other pump manufacturers can. I don't know how many PSI you need for your filtration, so that might push you towards something more like an ARO or otherwise. You mention recirculating, at what temperatures? Spectacular packaging btw.

Generating clean steam is a whole other issue.

Here is another one: http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2005/614/ Question is, how important is mass transfer within the dephlegmator? Based on the first piece it looks like the additional rectification is minimal, likely less than adding an additional plate. Since we're not selectively removing components of the vapor stream, it wouldn't really be any different from enabling an additional plate (if you have that capability) or slightly increasing reflux ratio (by reducing the dephlegmator temperature) to yield the same output abv. I still think the most effective approach is to separate the dephlegmator and product condenser temperature controls and run them independently. Gives you additional flexibility that you wouldn't otherwise have, and is likely more energy efficient.

Found an interesting PDF that seems to go into some of the detail around this topic (from an industrial perspective). www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/.../Trial%20_lecture_presentation.ppt Looks like in the partial condenser, there is some amount of additional mass transfer/rectification taking place (vapor moving upward against condensate moving downward). Pretty neat.

Really? Can you cite literature on this? Somewhat surprised, because based on my very limited understanding of the scientific principals involved, you can not selective condense substances by varying the cooling temperature. No different from looking at it from the opposite phase change direction, you can not selectively evaporate them by varying heating temperatures. If you could, you wouldn't need additional plates or distillation stages to increase purity. Isn't the chemical make up of the condensate always be based on the chemical make up of the vapor that preceded condensation? I would think the reason why warm water condensers have larger surface areas, is because they are less efficient than a condenser designed for cooler temps, in some cases significantly so.

I hear you - had a similar scenario where we experimented with pre gelatinized corn in the same ratios as cracked corn. I don't think a cement mixer would have helped. I scooped myself a nice bowl, added some salt and a pat of butter, then proceeded to drop the temp, add amylase, thin it out, and heat it back up again to drop the rest of the grain bill. Can you share the details on your steam coil? Have a similar need and have been struggling to find any kind of real-world details on coil sizing. Length? Diameter? Steam trap? jb

Jesus I have no idea, I don't even remember typing this. Clearly I was on my fourth or fifth napkin at the time. KW = (Liters * Delta T) / (790 * Heat Up Time in Hours) 10kw = (225 * 85) / (790 * 2.4) It would take 2.4hrs to heat 225 liters of water from 15c to 100c. (I'm guessing I was using 80 and not 85 for delta T above) 10kwh is 36,000kJ Latent heat of evaporation of water is 2270kJ/kg At 10kw, you can boil off 15.86kg in an hour (or 15.86 liters in an hour). 150l / 15.86l/hr = 9.5hr

Get equipment specifications and provide them to the engineer to run his own calculations. It's not only the weight that's important, it's the loading, how the weight is distributed is going to make a big impact on the floor requirements. While the weight may not differ much between 7bbl fermenters, the surface area to the floor will. Something like a Conipac - low and wide, is going to be a much easier load than something tall, narrow, and on 3 feet. I suspect the engineer is not going to take napkin math as an input. There are other practical considerations. What about a fork lift, or at least something like a walkie? You are talking an easy 1.5-3 ton here. What if you are using it to move a 2 ton sack? You've got a potential 5 ton load moving over the floor, that's more than some of the heavy equipment. What about the freight elevator? Can it handle a pallet loaded straight in? Double stacked? A 2 ton sack? How will you get your equipment up to the second floor? Will it go up the lift? Will you need a crane? I bet you rigging and moving might cost as much as the equipment. Or worse, what if you need to build in place, that means if you ever want to move, you'll be calling the scrap guys to bring their saws. Also, adding floor drains after the fact will likely not be permitted, the floor needs to be built and poured with the appropriate drains in place. No cutting channels unless you want the floor to cave. While it might be possible to cut round drains, likely not going to be as effective. What about the weight of your inventory? Grain? Fully loaded casks? Boxes of empty and filled bottles? What about trash? Spent grain? What's the outcome if you accidentally dump a full fermenter on the floor (accidentally shear the valve with the fork lift) - is it going to get you kicked out when you ruin the first floor tenants equipment or inventory? These are some of the items that came up when we discussed using a second floor space in an old historic factory. Surprisingly, the floors would support the loads, but only because the factory had been built to house some massive cast iron equipment, on all floors.

Impossible to describe consistency using subjective terms, everyone's idea of soup is different. I wouldn't describe it as gummy cream soup however. If you talk in grain/water ratios it's at least comparable objectively. With rye - suggest starting with a lower initial gravity target and then working upwards from there, until you get what are looking for, and not try to go whole hog again. Something nice and thin, target of around 5%, which would be around 1.5lbs per gallon if you are using enzymes and fermenting/distilling on grain. It's much easier to get a handle on how rye reacts and differs from the lower-glucan grains by taking it in smaller steps. You might want to go with the protein rest as well as the TL. You might want to recalibrate or at least check your thermometers and pH probes. Assuming you used the full compliment of enzymes (AA, GA, Sebflo-TL), you shouldn't have stuck your ferment and you shouldn't be looking at anything that is sticky or gummy post ferment. It's very possible that you were working off incorrect temp or pH measurements and ended up deactivating your enzymes. You are using a steam jacket still? Also, get some anti-foam, Fermcap-S or any other silicone antifoam.

Perhaps it's time to push the TTB for changes in designations, either through altered definitions, or through expanded classes and types that allow for more mainstream usage of alternative maturation techniques. One could make the argument that new oak is extremely wasteful from an environmental perspective, contributing significantly to deforestation and carbon emission. The manufacturing process and downstream shipment is likely just as resource intensive, wasteful. I'm sure there are plenty of environmental groups just looking for a new mission. There is very clear precedent in the industry around the "recycling" or barrels, and the benefits. Or, look at it from another direction - do you think consumers really care about the designations these days? I'd argue that your label design is significantly more important than your listed class and type. The way I see it, why not simply adjust the definitions of "Whisky distilled from XX mash" from "stored in used oak containers" to "stored in contact with oak". I suspect very few would consider this a major change to these rarely-used designations. Then, screw the barrel entirely and just label as "Whiskey" - you can get a brand new 350 gallon stainless IBC for $2000. That's 5 bucks a gallon, and can be reused for nearly forever. I'm pretty sure you can find virgin, fresh cut oak to cut into "staves" and char through your local tree services. There are plenty of large mature oaks that come down every day here in the Northeast, they all go straight into the mulchers or the landfill. Stainless aging with immersed oak is relatively commonplace these days, no doubt because of the high "wine barrel" prices.

Anyone happen to have a CPS number (or range) for mash as well as wet stillage? 2500 at the high end for a thick corn mash? 5000 at the high end for wet stillage?

Use your pump to recirculate the mash in the fermenter. Just saved you $1,000. Otherwise, a clamp on drum mixer would probably work fine, hp will depend on the size of the paddle and the tank. You can find these pretty regularly on the used market.

Concentric tube setups seem to be very hard to find these days, the few that the surplus outfits have in stock are priced astronomically, as much as new units. I've toyed around with the idea of building my own Copper in PVC or Stainless in PVC tube-in-tube, seems easy enough. We have a 600 gallon Mueller, beautiful piece of equipment.

Design quickly becoming a reality on this. Thought I'd share a photo of the plate configuration, borosilicate glass section, and custom gaskets. Tough to judge scale without reference, but that's a 12.5" outer diameter on the glass sections.

Phthalates are also used in pesticides, and are a wastewater pollutant, which are making phthalates more commonly found in food products than we might like. Normally I'd post the literature, but do yourself a favor and don't look it up, it's depressing.

What are you asking?

Hogwash psuedoscience, the problem is there is some truth to it, but in reality the impact is so minuscule it is irrelevant. Drinking RO+DI is not harmful - however, there are two issues. RO+DI should not be stored for more than a day or two, as it no longer contains disinfectants. It should not be considered potable in mid-term/long-term storage without additional treatment. This is why gallon jugs of DI water at the supermarket have the "not for human consumption" label on them. I suspect many misinterpret the warning and associate it with the mineral myth, and not the real-world microbiological aspect. We get more than our daily requirements of trace minerals from diet, water isn't considered a source of nutrition. For reference, the average American consumes somewhere around 3000mg of sodium a day, typical water has 50mg/liter of sodium, the equivalency is nearly 16 gallons of water. Now, we shouldn't be eating 3000mg, but that's another thread. Also, RO+DI has no taste, but when you drink it, it sometimes tastes pretty bad, other times good. The "flavor" of RO+DI is really being driven by the fact that it has no taste, but will do a good job of dissolving whatever you had left in your mouth from lunch, and with no off-flavors to mask it, you get to enjoy your meal a second time.

Western Square racks will fit 15 and 30s

I was under the impression that most "barrel programs" involved a delivery of bottled product, usually with a personalized label or sticker, and an empty barrel.

How comfortable are you with basic electronics and wiring? Do you know someone you can enlist to help? If you want turn-key, you are going to pay for it. The individual parts are all relatively commonplace, and not complicated, but you are going to need to put it together. Assuming that your Ward burner came with all the appropriate pilot and flame monitoring safety equipment - and also assuming that you'll be calling a commercial plumber to run your gas lines and hook up the burner to code. Have the plumber add an additional 2 way fuel gas solenoid valve, 24 volts AC, normally closed to the line, he/she will know what you are talking about (they'll install an Asco or Honeywell). This shouldn't add more than $150 to the total bill, but do it when you have the lines run, because adding it afterwards will cost you triple. Have it added in a location such that it isn't in close proximity to the still. You want to be able to cut gas to the whole area. They'll add this in addition to the shut off valves required by code. The solenoid is going to be an important part of your safety cut-off. When power is applied to it, gas flows, when power is removed (or the power goes out entirely), the fuel gas line is shut down. That'll put your Baso into failure mode, preventing gas from flowing if power was restored. Once the solenoid is in, you'll have a number of different options with regard to a manual shut-down. Most wall mount emergency switches are nothing more than a mushroom switch in an enclosure. You've got a 24vac transformer already, or you can add an additional. But wiring the wall button to the solenoid is relatively easy. Button out, gas on, button in, gas closed. From a procedures standpoint, this would not eliminate the need to physically shut your gas valves when you are done using the appliance, and turning them on immediately before. All disclaimers apply, this system does not monitor for failure conditions, it simply gives you a way to quickly cut gas flow for any reason, including failure of any of the down-stream components. Chances are your local codes will be having your plumber add a valve somewhere within 6 feet of the appliance. If that device needs to be shut down in an emergency, getting within 6 feet of it probably isn't possible. The whole point is to locate an additional fuel cut off switch in an alternative location without needed complex routing of gas lines to do it. The fuel line solenoid will be a necessary prerequisite of any more complex control system, so just go ahead and add it.

Direct fired? I vote for manual burner control with a safety shut off near the still (big red button) but not so near that you would need to put yourself in harms way to hit it. There are plenty of places to effectively use process automation/controllers, but in this specific case, I say that low-tech is the best tech. Low tech is probably a bad description, that burner is pretty high-tech, but you don't need to automate it. Besides, there isn't much automation you can do with boiler temp control. Inserting a controller in the mix only means that you'll be doing double the work to override your controller settings throughout the run. Once it's up to temp, the boiling point governed by the wash, not the controller. Once you hit boil, the controller is largely useless in automatic mode. Technically, you could automate it, but you'd need to reprogram the controller based on the wash ABV, every run, and you'd need an array of sensors to tell the dumb controller what is very obvious to you (vapor blowing out of the condenser, for example). You'll get more bang for your buck from automating your condenser temp control (coolant temp in your flake stand). In this case automation can do a better job than a person could.

There is a firm out in Europe that's got some huge industrial eye candy as well. The hype wouldn't have lasted, since they are having the factory build two anyhow! I suppose the difference is that this one is affordable to the distiller. The other? Not so much.

Particle size is going to range widely, easily 1-2500 micron, upper limit going to be governed by your mill, but no way to eliminate the fines entirely. http://www.brewingwithbriess.com/Assets/Presentations/Briess_Richard_Ellis_Mashing%20for%20Optimal%20Yield.pdf Check slide 36: 10% flour, 35% fine grits, 35% coarse grits, 20% husk. You'll find much more data on sieve analysis in the brewing literature, but it should get you close. Breiss also has another document titled "Practical Milling" with some other information. From my perspective, it's not the particle size that's the problem, it's the viscosity of the remaining slurry once the "easy liquid" is decanted off. Dehner has got the most promising low-cost approach using a hydraulic press. I've played around with options down that road and they look the most promising. I believe adding some beta glucanase when you pitch your yeast will make it slightly easier to strain without clogging up. When I was attempting to press, it seemed that the glucanase batches were easier to press without clogging. At some point I'll play with a vibratory screen, but buying a Russell Finex is probably just a whole lot easier in the long run.

If I'm not mistaken, the bubble cap tray will have it's 200th birthday next year!