kleclerc77

We had a lot of great help from G&D Chillers. We went with an oversized reservoir that the spent cooling water returns to, as opposed to a separate tank. That way the returning hot water won't effect the temperature of the reservoir as much due to the sheer size of it. All the while a twin seven ton glycol chiller is cooling said reservoir, and will continue to do so overnight until it reaches a pre-determined temperature. Basically, it was more economical to have an enormous reservoir as opposed to a more powerful chiller unit.

Any enzymes you buy will come with detailed dosage instructions. You can find them on most websites as well. They're all a little different between suppliers.

I like using big sidewalk chalk, or a grease marker. 

I've followed this thread and had planned on cooking our rye upwards of 180° and adding exogenous enzymes and/or malt on the cool down. However, I was reading an old handbook from Seagram's last night (attached) that had a very different mashing protocol for rye. I realize that they have the small percentage of malt(barley) in the mash from the get-go, but wouldn't the same principles apply if you were using exogenous enzymes? If not, it seems like using this method with malt would save a ton of energy in cooking rye, if nothing else. I am assuming here that the enzymatic activity they bring up is due to the barley malt as opposed to the possibility that the rye is malted. Thoughts?

PS: sorry there is a bracket around the bit about wheat mashing, I was taking notes for myself. The same questions come up there too, though.

I'd contact the folks at Headframe out of Montana for all the info you requested. I'm looking forward to getting one in the near future! https://www.headframestills.com/stills/

Tube in shell chillers are simple and work extremely well. I highly recommended them for grain-in mashes. I got some ridiculous quotes from certain suppliers, but Jesse at Trident Stills hooked us up with two at a really reasonable cost.

https://www.tridentstills.com

1 hour ago, Thatch said:

I'm not sure how much we are keeping from our fermenters, if any, once we're through sparging.

That's a good point. However, I always understood it as more of a way to stabilize your grain bed/prevent a stuck mash. There's nothing sadder than seeing a big, beautiful grain bed crack right in half 😭

On 3/24/2019 at 8:19 PM, Roger said:

Why bother with the vorlauf ? We've run both ways and see no discernible difference in the end distillate. Vorlauf seems to do nothing but tie up the lauter tun for even more time?

Thoughts? 

That's how I was taught. I've never mashed malt without doing a good, gentle recirc over the top of the bed. I'd only do it for 15-30 minutes. Works remarkably well. You can see the extra fine particles at the top of your puck, especially when you check out the cross sections while shoveling it out 😂100% worth it in my opinion.

On 3/23/2019 at 10:44 AM, Georgeous said:

yep thats what i figured

To be honest, that isn't even the best answer, but is definitely one way to go about it. If you have the capacity to collect a kettle's worth of low wines and run that, that's what I would do. From reading your scenario, it didn't seem like that was in the cards. It's easier to make cuts with a bigger batch!

44 minutes ago, Georgeous said:

do I take my hundred gallons and add 200 gallons of water and run it through the refracting columns ? 

Yes.

1 hour ago, Geoman said:

that should keep glycol chillers safer, but don't see how can such practice fit to any still condenser and or dephlegmator!!

The same water reservoir cools our dephlegmators and condenser. It is enormous so the returning water won't have a huge impact on the temp. We don't plan on mashing and distilling simultaneously.

Those numbers are assuming 100% of alcohol is recovered which is never really the case. With that math, you would expect 145 gallons at 35% though - (51x100)/35 OR (100/35)x51. Redundant, I know, but it helps to be OCD when checking numbers. 

I'd imagine there aren't any calculators because there are too many variables, and too many ways to interpret/misinterpret your actual alcohol content based on hydrometer/refractometer readings. 

8 hours ago, Geoman said:

why can't distillers use glycol system for all cooling needs, condenser, dephlegmator, fermentation, and mash.  Any reason?

In our case, the process could have made the glycol too hot to return to the chiller without damaging it. It stresses out the chilling apparatus if returning at a high temp. That's why we have a huge water reservoir that cools our process, and a glycol chiller that chills that water reservoir.

I'm looking for an alternative to the condenser temperature probe we were given with our still. I am looking for an explosion proof, alarmed temperature gauge to take the place of what we have in there now. What we have now is meant to be run with an automated setup, which we do not have. ( https://spluss.de/en/products/temperature/temperature-controllers-thermostats/built-in-temperature-controller-immersion-thermostat/1102-2010-2100-390-etr-060-u-va-100/ ) (pictured) Trying to find an answer from our supplier has been unsuccessful. If anyone has a lead on a alternative, or how to get this thing hooked up to an explosion proof alarm, it would be much appreciated. Not the most exciting topic, but a frustrating dead end that has taken up a lot of my time! Thanks!

Are you going to be using cooling water for mash too? We just put together a closed loop system for all of our cooling water, because our mash schedule doesn't allow us to use the spent cooling water. Basically we have an oversized cold water reservoir that is chilled by a glycol chiller, spent (hot) cooling water returning to that reservoir. It was pricy but should make up for itself in a couple years.

17 hours ago, Southernhighlander said:

Are you sure that they are pitted and don't have something on them.  What are you using them for?  .

I thought it may be some residue at first, but they are definitely all pitted. They're for hoses that will be transferring grain in mash, and it seemed wrong to me that these pieces weren't machined to be food grade. Not to mention there is residue, cuts, and dents taken out of a number of them from previous use. I'm a little dumbfounded here, and will be requesting new pieces from our supplier.

Our equipment supplier just sent us a number of barbed hose fittings, a number of which (but not all) are rough/pitted on the inside. I've never seen anything like this and am concerned that they are not food grade/they won't be able to be properly cleaned and sanitized. Some of the fittings are clearly used, and I'm not sure if the pitting is from use or if they were manufactured that way. Has anyone run into this issue before?

17 hours ago, whiskeytango said:

Maybe different state but doesn't matter once the law suits fly over trademark.  

 

Yep, we're having loads of fun with that right now ourselves 🤣

1 hour ago, Southernhighlander said:

I have seen some manufacturers such as Corson have the column bases to low which causes their columns to flood.

People have actually received finished equipment from Corson?! 😂

Interesting thread @meerkat. I noticed on the Vendome drawings that the return lines don't seem to be sloped. Is that the case, or does the drawing just not illustrate the door clearly? Our still's return lines have a healthy slope to them. I am going to put off drilling those holes unless I run into a similar problem, in which case I'll certainly try it out. Thanks!

On 10/9/2018 at 4:17 PM, meerkat said:

I have seen vapor locking occur with an internal seal, ie one that enters the pot above the liquid level but extends down below the surface.  This is because it is quite tricky to get the sizing of the line just right to be able to flush any incondensible gases down the seal leg.  However, this is easily fixed by drilling a small hole (approx 1/8") in the elbow inside the pot above the liquid level. This is big enough to allow the small quantity of trapped gases to escape into the pot, but small enough to limit vapors from the pot entering the return line and causing problems.

Call me crazy, but drilling a hole anywhere in our equipment makes me nervous. Why would vapor be making its way back to the kettle? Did you do this on your still? It makes perfect sense if that is an issue, but still would make me nervous.

I use coconut oil in a test still, but for some reason am hesitant in scaling up with it. It works like a charm in the little guy though. 

https://www.wlky.com/amp/article/scam-alert-fake-bourbon-barrel-company-deceives-customers/25657218

These fuckers!!!

I'm looking for some suggestions for exogenous enzymes to use in our grain-in mashing. I've mashed a ton of single malt before, where exogenous enzymes were unnecessary. I may use malt down the line for conversion, but initially am looking to use enzymes until I get a firm grasp on our equipment's heating and cooling quirks/capabilities. I'm leaning towards a certain supplier I won't mention as to not skew people's advice. Lots of suppliers on here, but looking for success stories from producers. Thank you!