Your Vote Counts

Smaug

Email me please. Thanks

emptyglass

Go the cone! The bowl ones look like they got a beer gut. My 2c.

Mountaineer

I agree

LunaBrille

I like both with the edge going to the original. But height is not a concern for me.

FullySilenced

4 to 2's and 4 to 3's i am thinking bubble ball variations

Myles

Personally I would go for the bowls. As for the versions with the sight glass - that is a bit of a problem. I could live without them, but I can see that they are quite convenient for use above a packed section. Not really needed above plates though.

I don't really want to complicate things but now the sight towers are available, I think the sight reducer is obsolete.

I would replace the sight glass reducer with a sight tower reducer, if I had that option. Just as an example a 4" sight tower with a 2" top plate. Perhaps even a 4" sight tower with a 4" to 2" bowl instead of the flat top plate.

Lloyd

@Myles said: I would replace the sight glass reducer with a sight tower reducer, if I had that option. Just as an example a 4" sight tower with a 2" top plate. Perhaps even a 4" sight tower with a 4" to 2" bowl instead of the flat top plate.

Our 4" columns usually use a 4" dephlegmator. That's the joy of fully modular, you can build anything.

Myles

Absolutely agree Lloyd, I was only thinking of the reducer option for the VM application above a packed column.

Although to be honest there are now VM configurations which no longer require the restriction to increase the vapour speed prior to the vapour splitting section.

I am just waiting to see someone build a VM head over a hybrid 4" column. 500mm of packing over 4 plates using a 2" Baby dephlegmator instead of the VM valve and a 2" Big Baby as the reflux condenser.

FullySilenced

Myles, Wouldn't you need a restriction plate in the outlet side to force some vapor over to the reflux condenser side? Something about 1/3 to 1/2 the open area?

Myles

Sorry I seem to have dragged this off topic, perhaps the last couple of posts could be split off into another topic in the configuration section.

FS I don't think so. Provided the 2 vapour branches are the same size the vapour will split OK. The physical obstruction should provide sufficient turbulence.

However, in hindsight, if you are replacing the product valve with a dephlegmator this configuration does not make sense - you might as well just use a 4" dephlegmator directly above the column.

The offset configuration with 2 vapour paths only makes sense with a physical valve in the vapour path. As soon as you replace the physical valve with any sort of "simulated valve" it is no longer a (true) VM - you have just converted it back into a double CM configuration, and there is no real benefit to splitting the vapour path.

Unless off course you are doing so as a means to management of the reflux return path - but that is an entirely different issue. A valid one, but not really in the VM vs CM debate. An external reflux return line gives you the option of splitting the reflux path, which has potential applications in high power applications.

Lloyd

Everyone seems to have weighed in on the cone vs. bowl reducer and many good arguments made for both sides.

Only one thing to do is to stock both for awhile and let you vote with your $$.
We can cull the very slow selling items after 6 months or so.

Many thanks to all for the insights of what you want us to offer.

Philter

@Lloyd Thanks for providing us with the opportunity :D

Prairiepiss

Bowl. That is all.

nwvapors

Man I am late to this party, +1 bowl. I have height restrictions and would like to switch to a shotgun product condenser at some point.

dellae

+1 on the bowl for aesthetics. However they would be difficult to add a thermowell to like I did on my 3"-2" conical.

In terms of function - conical is preferable in hi velocity flow rates where minimal turbulence is required - not really a consideration for us.

Gil_flask

@Stinger said: Bowl for the 4" and up, conical for 4" and down. (ONLY 4" available in both). - Well, that's what floats MY boat.

Ya, I think Stingers on point. That's how I want my vote counted.

cooperville

@Lloyd Thanks for providing us with the opportunity +1

jbierling

What's the exact height difference between the bowl and conical 8"?

Smaug

The conical version is 7.5" and the Bowl type is 5"

Drunkas

I vote conical I seem to see it as being the better one for vapor flow and also it has the lower impact on my wallet.

Lloyd

I like the looks and the height savings.

EdInNH

For height saving I like the endcap style and for smooth flow or cleaning in place I like the conical. The Bowl style is just a compromise. It doesn't offer as much height savings and is harder to clean in place.

I have a low ceiling in my basement and needed a 6 to 4 reducer. I could not find an affordable 6 to 4 endcap reducer so I used a hole saw in a 6 inch end plate and had a 4 inch ferrule welded into the hole.

If your suppliers can produce inexpensive endcap reducers in large sizes I think you may have customers beyond dash owners.

Lloyd

Ask your SD distributor for any size end cap reducer, we probably have it in stock.
An end cap reducer cannot be used with a shotgun condenser because it will block off many of the holes. The 4" dephlegmator to 2" bend comes to mind.

Grudaire

I'm thinking still dragon has a pretty good brewer customer base which might be a view worth considering from a business standpoint. So from my that perspective I'm thinking conical. A few things I'm working a piecing together is a sort of hop Randall to load hops into to circulate wort through during cooling and to use whole hops as a filter. Another idea im working on is a condenser from the top of my boil kettle as I'm tired if the cloud in my garage during the boil. While I much prefer the look of the bowl, I think the conical is more functional, further brewers don't worry much about clearance so that advantage of the bowl doesn't mean much. Anyway, just a brewers perspective, I don't mean to step on toes as I understand distilling is the basis of SD.