MichaelAtTCW

This has been discussed a few times:

I would recommend something like a Ragazzini Peristaltic Pump or Ampco ZP1. Molasses is around 5-10k centipoise, which is not anywhere near the highest viscosity either pump is capable of pumping. In any case, you can't run the pumps at full speed when pumping viscous materials. You must run them at lower RPMs so that material can be pulled into the inlet. Running more slowly means that the flow rates will be lower, so you typically have to oversize the pump. E.g. if you need 10 GPM of flow rate, you would need a pump with a max flow rate of 20-30 GPM for products with water-like viscosity. The higher the better, as a lot of efficiency is lost with pumping viscous materials.

The advice to warm the molasses up and have it flood the inlet is sound. Self-priming with viscous materials is very difficult, even pumps that can pull nearly perfect vacuum like the above.

Those plastic housings you linked to are easier to blow by than Code 7 housings. They're great for non-mission-critical applications—water, depth filtration with melt blown or spun filtration—but there is the potential that material can sneak by if there are any weak points in the seal as @PeteB points out. The Code 7 housings eliminate this issue by using two o-rings and locking tabs for a seal. I've never seen any blow-by with Code 7 housings.

3 hours ago, needmorstuff said:

and are you saying 2 x code 7 housings?

1 just before enolmatic for final "catch all" and 1 between tanks with liquid being move by pump?

No, I'm saying just one housing, but break it out into two steps. Do your main filtration by hooking a pump up to the tank of unfiltered product and pushing it through the Code 7 housing into another tank. Then bottle from that tank. If you want to keep an "insurance" filter onstream during bottling, just put the Code 7 housing inline with the Enol filler, and bypass the Enol's housing. Seems like the Enol housing's filter could be the weak point in the equation.

58 minutes ago, needmorstuff said:

Got the filler pulling through the 0.2 micron filter. The O-ring wasn't seated.

I am still seeing the "dust" 

I spoke to someone who reckons all filters should be pumped through and not sucked.

Maybe I will splash out on a SS filter to see what difference if any that makes.

The SS filter will not make a difference. SS is no better than other filter media, and is worse in many ways (not as efficient and more expensive, but still has a finite lifespan, and can't be regenerated any more than normal polypropylene cartridges).

With regard to sucking vs. pushing, I agree that it is typically better to push, but you don't have much choice with the Enolmatic. Still, all things being equal, this won't contribute to dust forming in your finished product. It'll just cause hard-to-diagnose plumbing integrity issues like the one you're having

If it were me, I would try to bypass the Enol filter and use a Code 7 stainless steel housing like this. An equivalent one should be available from a food & bev supplier in your area. Code 7 housings are the standard filter for food, bev, and even pharma because it's impossible to push liquid around the double o-ring seals. Run tank-to-tank filtration with a positive displacement pump. Then run your bottling. Use a high-quality filter designed for food and bev, not water. Even a nominal filter would be fine if it's in the 0.4 or 0.6 micron range. If Graver is available in your area, their QMC filters would be a good choice. I see these guys may carry them in the UK.

If you really want to splash out on a filter, get a PES absolute-rated membrane filter at 0.65 µ. That would be ZTEC WB filters from Graver. If you're still seeing "dust" after that, then whatever is causing the dust is in solution and cannot be filtered with dead-end filtration. My guess is that's unlikely.

It doesn't fill up a smidge more when removed when the bottle is removed, no. The filler works by displacing air in the bottle with liquid from the reservoir. When the bottle is full there is nowhere else for liquid to go. No more air to be displaced. The liquid in the reservoir just stays in the reservoir. When you pull the bottle off, the outer sheath snaps back in place and covers the hole. There isn't enough time for liquid to find a new path into the bottle. I imagine if you pulled the bottles off verrrrryyyyyyy slowly it could fill a smidge more, but a user with marginal-to-average dexterity will have no issues.

Same as with a vacuum filler. If you pulled it off very slowly it would fill a smidge more until the nozzle clears the bottle, but it's never an issue. The nozzle springs back into place too quickly to make any difference.

Here's a video I took a while back. Should be pretty straightforward. The bottle seals against the nozzle cone, which pulls back the outer sheath. Liquid flows via gravity until the fill hole is covered. At that point, gravity and atmospheric pressure in the bottle are balanced, and no more liquid will flow.

We sell the Mori Gravity Filler, and have for a long, long time, so I'm biased. We used to sell the Enolmatic/Enolmaster a long time ago, but became frustrated with Tenco in Italy, who either make or distribute them (I can't recall which). They were not particularly responsive to issues we were having with the filler, and lead times were really bad.

Around the same time Mori released their filler and we liked it a lot, so we focused on that, and have sold many of them since.

In terms of which is better, I think gravity is simpler and makes more sense, and I've spoken with a number of customers who feel the same way after moving from an Enol filler to a Mori gravity filler. That said, I've read a number of accounts on this forum from people who are perfectly happy with their Enol. Most of the frustrations with Enol fillers I've seen are from people unhappy with how the filter is setup (and I don't blame them, it's pretty goofy, in my opinion).

Yep, as you stated in your original post, not all 1µ filters are created equally. Generally speaking there's nothing to stop one manufacturer from branding a filter as 1µ even if it is only 80% efficient at 1µ. While another manufacturer might only brand a filter 1µ if it's >98% efficient at 1µ. There is even inconsistency within the same manufacturer between their high-end filters and low-end water-type filters (the higher-end filters are generally higher efficiency, and more rigorously QA'd). That's why it helps to look at spec sheets, if available. Like the one attached here. It states the efficiency of the filter (95%, in this case) and the "Beta Ratio", which shows its efficiency at two different ranges. E.g., the 1 micron filter is 95% efficient at removing 1µ particles and 99% efficient at removing 6 µ particles.

graver-qmc.pdf

On 4/29/2020 at 1:18 PM, needmorstuff said:

updates...

the double open ended 1 micron filters i was sold are not absolute, i.e they are crap. The manufacturer themselves states that they are so crap they shouldn't be used below 30 microns. I have sent them back for a refund.

Just a note for future distillers reading this: just because a filter is not absolute rated, does not mean it is crap. Filters generally come in two flavors: "absolute rated" and "nominally rated". They each have their place in filtration.

Absolute-rated filters are generally high efficiency, meaning that if they say they filter 1 micron particles, they filter over 99.999…% of 1 micron particles. However, they typically also have low "dirt-holding capacity". They clog quickly, in other words. They are also typically quite a bit more expensive, particularly if they are food-grade, made with high-quality components, and usable in food & bev production.

Nominally-rated filters may still be relatively high efficiency. They might filter up to 99% of particles up to a given micron size, but  they still can't be called absolute filters. Doesn't mean they're junk, though.

Nominally-rated filters are typically used for pre-filtration, particularly if the user has an absolute-rated filter downstream that they don't want to clog up (absolute-rated filters are typically more expensive, after all). Still, many distillers purchase nominal "pre filters" from us and use them as their only filter with great results. Graver's QMC and GFC are both good examples of filters that are not absolute-rated, but do a great job of filtering out any visible particles at 0.6µ, 1.0µ, or even 5µ.

To add to the confusion, "nominal" and "absolute" are not regulated terms. One manufacturer's "absolute" may be another manufacturer's "nominal". That's why it's generally good to find a manufacturer that makes good filters that get the job done for you. Obviously, we recommend Graver, though there are certainly other well-regarded brands with food & bev lines.

Quote

I have since discovered the human eye can't see anything below 30 microns.

This is true, but it also depends on the particle count. You can see anything that small individually, but you can definitely see aggregate particles smaller than 30 microns if they're present in sufficient quantities. They'll appear as haze or cloudiness. That's why customers looking for "Bud Light" brightness typically need to filter down to 1-10 micron, sometimes smaller.

I've been talking to a customer that's using the Mori to fill small short-necked bottles like the attached and it works for them. BUT it's definitely not what it's designed for, and they are making some modifications to achieve greater spring tension against the mouth of the bottle.

When the fill level is near the opening of the bottle—as is the case with short-necked bottles—there is very little spring tension. As a result, the seal against the bottle's mouth is not wonderful, and there's a greater chance of overfilling unless you remove the bottle quickly. You can increase the spring tension by preloading to the spring on the spout with additional tension. This can be achieved by stacking washers underneath the spring. We could also probably machine some spacers out of brass or aluminum that would do the same thing.

On another note, with the hand sanitizer boom, we've sold a lot more Mori Fillers than normal. We're down to just three 6-Spout Mori Fillers in stock as of today. Not sure when I'll be getting more in, as Mori is completely shut down through the middle of the month. They're in Northern Italy, unfortunately.

Fuck off with that flat-earther/sovereign citizen/crisis actor/faked moon landing bullshit. You believe you know better than the thousands of doctors and scientists that are on the frontlines of this disease because you watched some Youtube videos made by people just as nutty as you. That's not enlightenment. It's narcissism.

52 minutes ago, bluestar said:

If you look at my reply, you will see that I did anticipate the some of the conditions you describe. Yes, if your filters require higher pressure differential than 14 psi, you can not use vacuum alone. However...

Let's talk safety: One advantage of a vacuum system for filling of higher-proof spirits (as opposed to beer, wine, or non-alcoholic beverage) is that it could be nominally safer. Yes, it will fail by cavitation if there is a leak, but you won't leak high-proof spirits and continue to run, which is an unsafe condition. And the leak does not have to be major, if pressurized, just enough to provide ethanol vapor. Also, if you are going to pressurize ABOVE 15psi with high proof spirits, you may change the safety requirements for your distillery, since you will need to have a pressure vessel with flammable materials.

Of course, part of why I do use them is because I do so with vacuum filler systems. And they have worked so well for me, that when we set up to filter spirits without bottling, we set up a vacuum based system as well. Yes, you must purchase filters that will operate efficiently below 14 psi, and you will not be able to extend the lifetime of the use of the filters by raising the pressure above that. Generally, this has not been a problem for us filtering spirits, I can see it being a definite problem filtering wine or beer. BTW, for most of the pleated filters we use with our spirits, while the maximum rated pressure is as high as 50psi, their nominal operating pressure is far less, typically below 10psi.

I stand by what I said, although I appreciate your clarification. By the way, I certainly agree with you, I would not set up to use vacuum on one side and pressurize the other, that was not what I meant to describe. I meant that if you are using filters that should operate BELOW 14 psi, you can use flow control to drop the pressure further.

Nevertheless, I think we can agree, that if you want to operate filters that require greater than 15psi differential pressure, vacuum is certainly not going to work for you.

Makes sense, and under some conditions I may end up recommending filtering under vacuum to our customers. Sorry for the thread hijack @daveflintstone

3 hours ago, bluestar said:

I am sorry, but generally this is just not correct. The physics doesn't work that way. Filters work on pressure differential. The filter only "sees" the difference in pressure across the filter material, and doesn't know that, relative to outside air pressure, the pressure on the low side is at atmospheric pressure or zero or something in between. But the TOTAL pressure drop across the filter is what matters, so it IS true, that if you want to operate the filter at significantly LESS or MORE than one atmosphere differential drop, that pulling a vacuum on the low side without something to adjust pressure on the high side would not do what you want. I don't know what the STRONG ARGUMENTS are against pulling through filters, as far as the filter function is concerned, UNLESS that filter is meant to operate at something very different than one atmosphere (1 bar, 15 psi) differential pressure. If the concern is controlling flow, that is simply done by a flow control valve, same as if you pressurized with a pump. The latter will also allow you to drop the differential pressure down below 1 atmosphere, since the differential pressure across the filter and the flow rate are roughly proportional.

I understand filtration, and that filters work on pressure differential. I stand by what I wrote, and I'm not sure what you're claiming is "just not correct". Is it the word "efficient"? I guess that word isn't very precise. Sure, all other things being equal, you will get the same result given the same pressure differential regardless of whether that pressure differential is created by pulling through the filter or pushing through it.

However, every time I've dealt with one of our customers who is having issues with their filtration—like air leaks causing the filter housing to fill up with air from the atmosphere and slowing down their filtration—the issue has been on the suction side of the equation. It usually ends up being a process line leak or a bad gasket somewhere upstream. When they're able to move the pump further upstream, the problem goes away or the leak is found. For that reason I say again: unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it makes more sense to push through filters—either with pumps or gas/air—and every commercial bottling/filtration facility I've seen adheres to this principle unless they're using a vacuum filler.

Again, by relying on vacuum to pull through the filter you leave usable filter lifespan on the table since the greatest vacuum you could hope to pull is 29.9 Hg, and filters generally clog at 35 psid. Since you can never achieve 35 psid with vacuum alone, your filters will appear to be "clogged" more quickly. So, in that sense, any filter with a recommend changeout pressure greater than 15 psid is "meant" to operate beyond what vacuum is capable of.

Sounds like sucking through filters has worked well for you, so don't let me try to talk you out of it. However, if I were advising someone on setting up a standard tank-to-tank filter with a pump, I can think of no good reason to advise them to pull through the filter. You could do it and still control the flow through the means you outline—increasing the pressure at the inlet side and installing a flow control valve—but you could also just use a positive displacement pump upstream of the filter and completely avoid such byzantine measures.

You can pull through filters, but unless there's a compelling reason to do so, it is less efficient than pushing through them, and there are some strong arguments against pulling through filters.
Some positive displacement pumps can pull excellent vacuum—air diaphragm or peristaltic pumps, for example pull a very strong vacuum. However, even a "perfect" vacuum (which isn't possible to achieve on earth) is only about 14.7 psi. Most filters are not considered clogged until they reach about 35 psi of pressure differential

So, you definitely can pull through filters. It may work perfectly fine for some applications, particularly if the filtered product has very low solids and isn't likely to clog up the filter anytime soon. However, you will be leaving filter lifespan on the table since your filters will be clogged at less than half their usable life.

Also, finding vacuum leaks is no fun. I'd rather try to diagnose a leak under pressure than under vacuum.

Anyway, this is all academic. If you're filtering tank-to-tank and you're using a pump, you should definitely put the filters after the pump and push through the filter. Pulling through the filter increases the risk of pump cavitation and dry running. The enolmatic is a vacuum filler, so no choice there, and no harm, really. The upside for the Enolmatic vendors is that they get to sell more filters since the filters will necessarily be considered clogged more quickly. Since the Mori Filler is not a vacuum filler, we always put the inline filter after the pump.

3 hours ago, Silk City Distillers said:

Most pumps we use can’t generate the same differential in suction as they can on the output side.

If you do find that one of your positive displacement pumps is generating more vacuum than pressure, contact NASA immediately.

While I've not bottled spirits myself, I've sold a whole lot of filters. Since there are no takers yet, I'll chime in:

What I hear from customers when they change subtle micron sizes is that there is usually no difference in appearance, but there may be changes to flow rate and filter longevity. It depends on the product, the filter, and how observant or persnickety the user is.

In general, you shouldn't see a difference at submicron levels. Polishing filtration—that is, filtration for appearance—typically happens at > 1µm. Filtration at < 1µm is typically for the reduction of micro organisms. The human eye can't see individual particles smaller than about 70 µm. You can see the effects of a lot of small particles together as haze, which typically means that the product has particles in the 1-5 µm range.

So, you should be able to remove most particulate haze by filtering down to 1 micron. Pretty straightforward…except 1 micron doesn't always mean 1 micron. Depending on the type of filter you're using and the manufacturer, 1 micron may be a "nominal" rating. For example, Brand X may call a filter 1 micron if it removes 90% of particles at 1 micron, whereas Brand Y may call a filter 1 micron only if it removes 99% of particles at 1 micron. So the results you see from filtering at 1µm using Brand X's filters may be different than the results you see using Brand Y's.

Take it all together, and basing filter selection on the experience of other users may not translate to how different filters work for you. I typically advise customers to try a couple of different 10" filters themselves and see if there are any noticeable differences. That's the only way to know for sure.

On the other hand, I've had customers who swear that a 0.65µm absolute final filter gives their product a "Bud Light" brightness that they did not see at, say 1.2µm absolute. Every situation is different…

Anyway, we carry a bunch of filtration stuff for distilleries. Happy to talk to anyone about filtration and their product.

1 hour ago, Silk City Distillers said:

Wow @MichaelAtTCW - the workmanship blew me away.  Not sure I expected it to be this well done.  Can't wait to fire her up!

 

Awesome. We've been noodling on the design for a long time. This one ticks all the boxes for me. Simple, inexpensive, precise, and flexible. No fiddling with individual nozzles, and you can level all your bottle at once. Let me know if you have any feedback after use.

Hey Gundog48. We sell a lot of filtration systems. By far we sell more cartridge filtration systems to distilleries in particular unless they are running at huge volumes. For the users producing liqueurs or botanicals with a higher solids content they typically go with multi-stage cartridge setup to step down incrementally from coarse to fine, and some do start with lenticular or 40 x 40 plate and frame setups.

The rule of thumb is that a typical commercial depth cartridge filters 3-5 GPM per 10 inches. So an unloaded 30" cartridge filters at a rate of 9-15 GPM. Coarser filters might have a higher flow rate. Finer filters usually have a lower flow rate. Flow rate is one consideration, but also bear in mind that even if you don't need the flow rate of a 30" filter, you will get more onstream life since 30" gives you more surface area, and therefore more dirt-holding capacity.

In terms of initial sizing, desired flow rate is the most important step. There are lots of cartridges available for standard Code 7 housing, from ultra-coarse to ultra-fine, and in lots of different materials. At that point you could spend lots of time and money on testing which cartridges, but it's usually easier to just buy a small range of cartridges and try them out to find out what works best for you. Since Code 7 cartridges twist and lock into place, you can use 10", 20" and 30" cartridges in a 30" housing, so I typically recommend people get a 30" housing. The difference in price is nominal. Then you can buy a few 10" cartridges for testing, which is much cheaper.

So, if you're initial product is fairly solids-heavy, and you're trying to get to 2µm in final filtration, a 2 or 3-stage setup should get you there. Here's what we offer in terms of all-in-one packages that distilleries like a lot:

TCW DoublePlus

TCW TriplePlus (good for liqueurs and heavy botanical-products where the users were previously having to run multiple passes, and were able to filter in a single pass).

@ryanh You're right, but I prefer not to rely on this method because some users find it's more difficult to get a proper seal against the neck of the bottle. However, if it works for you, then it's by far the simplest solution.

We're going to put the micro-adjust tray into production with the feedback from @Skaalvenn. We don't get the trays separately from Mori, so for now if you'd like us to modify one we'll need the original tray back in the shop. Ultimately I'm estimating we'll price it at $150-175 as an optional add-on, but through April 1st, 2020 we will do it for $75 + shipping, and it should take about a week to turn around once we receive it.

@John Bassett: Most distilleries use an air diaphragm pump sized according to their needs. Probably the most popular one we sell is the SimpleSpirits 43. They can pull liquid from about 15 feet dry, and 30 feet wet. The 43 is large enough that bits of char up to about 1/8" won't have any adverse effect. You can use smaller AODD pumps, but might want to put an inline mesh gasket screen to prevent solids from getting caught in the check valves.

You can use an electric pump, but we recommend keeping the VFD control outside of any areas designated for C1D2. In those cases, an SQN 20 is a nice little pump that can self-prime from about 10 feet dry and uses a C1D2 motor. You could go centrifugal, but priming from barrels could be a pain.

Thanks for the write-up @Skaalvenn

We're on v3 of the infinitely-adjustable tray prototype. I think this one's a winner in terms of being customizable and not too complicated to build (read: expensive) but feedback will be invaluable.

2 hours ago, Beach Time said:

After visiting a distillery in Denver and seeing how they managed this problem, I had adapted their strategy and use a diaphragm pump to empty my barrels in place without disturbing the char sediment.  If you have barrels stacked up you might consider getting them unstacked and lined up a few days prior so they resettle and then decant the clear spirit out.  I do a 1 micron depth filter + 0.5 micron absolute polish and don't get nearly as much binding/plugging of the filters doing this way....

It's not a bad idea, and quite often it's how wineries deal with the same issue, where lees and sediment collect at the bottom of the barrel. Our curved barrel racking wands allow you to angle into barrels already sitting on a rack without having to move them around, and they have an adjustable bolt at the bottom that allows you to keep the inlet of the wand off the very bottom where all the crud is.

Yes, we have sold our pumpover carts for this very purpose. When we sell them as barrel dump sumps we don’t put on the handles for lifting the perforated screen in and out, but rather weld on a "V" to keep the barrel stable like a barrel rack.

We sell a lot of cartridge filters in those sizes. The most popular ones we sell are Graver QMC from 0.6 to 10µ, and Graver GFC 1µ.

Probably the next most common question I hear after "how long do filters last before they clog?" is "what size do I use to filter out particles without removing flavor?". For spirits it would be pretty challenging to remove flavor using normal dead-end filtration like the cartridges linked above. The things that add flavor to your spirit are almost certainly entirely dissolved in solution. That is to say, they are not particles that would be caught in a filter, but are liquids that will pass right through. Unless you are running your spirits through nanofiltration or ultrafiltration, you can rest assured that filters are just removing the large particles like bit of charcoal dust, bits of barrel char, etc., and not having any impact on flavor.

Filters are filters. Not sure why there is any question about which one will work for the Enolmaster, but maybe there's something I'm missing. It's been many years since we stopped selling Tenco fillers so I don't recall completely, but I've been looking at pictures of the unit online and it's just a standalone filter housing with a hose barb inlet and outlet.

The only odd thing about their unit is that it uses vacuum to pull through the filter, which means you'll get less life out of filters than you would if you were pushing through them with a positive displacement pump, which is the way we set up Mori Fillers with inline filter.

Any filter housing should technically work. It's just a question of plumbing it inline with your Tenco filler:

Polypropylene filter housing

Stainless steel housing

Professional-grade housing

It looks like all you would need to do is get either a hose barb x thread or hose barb x tri clamp fitting to make one of those work just like the Tenco version.

We're getting great feedback on another pump that's a slam dunk for hot mash. Ampco ZP1.They're designed to be completely parts-interchangeable with Waukesha Universal 1 pumps. The main benefit is the all-stainless head rather than the painted mild steel head that waukesha uses on U1 pumps. Like Waukeshas, they're not cheap, but they pump from -40°–300°F without any issues. For the budget-conscious the Jabsco flexible impeller pumps are still a solid choice as long as you keep in mind their limitations, but if you want to turn it on and forget it, these are a great option.

Check 'em out: https://store.tcwequipment.com/products/ampco-zp1-30-sanitary-positive-displacement-pump

 I saw you reacted to a couple comments, and you've seemed very knowledgeable about equipment in the past.

21 hours ago, adamOVD said:

@MichaelAtTCW do you have any input? I saw you reacted to a couple comments, and you've seemed very knowledgeable about equipment in the past.

Thanks for saying so. Sure, I have some input.

There's some good advice in the thread already. What @richard1 says is on the money. With regard to stainless vs plastic I see people fall into a filtration logic trap that goes something like this:

1. Plastic is disposable.
2. Stainless steel is not disposable.
3. My filters are made of plastic and they are disposable.
4. Therefore, a filter made out of stainless steel would not be disposable.

It doesn't work that way. Filters have a finite lifespan. They last until they're clogged or until they become "spoiled" with mold, bacteria, etc. That's true no matter what material they're made of. That being the case, there isn't really a compelling reason to use stainless steel filters unless the material you're filtering is so aggressive/hot/cold that it is only compatible with stainless steel.

If you want inexpensive filters you can go with melt-blown depth cartridges. That's the cheapest style of filter. Like the SS filters they are relatively inefficient, small surface area, low dirt holding capacity, etc. They're typically single-use and are not designed for cleaning/backflushing, but only cost $10-$15/filter.

Spending more on a filter typically gets you greater efficiency, longevity, and dirt-holding capacity. We rep Graver filters, and they offer great US-made products at a reasonable price. I like QMC and GFC as bottling filters for spirits. Both will last you a while with proper cleaning and storage.