StillDragon® Community Forum

Welcome!

Be part of our community & join our international next generation forum now!

In this Discussion

Rum Jellyfish

2»

Comments

  • NO, this is for a double open ended cartridge. Code 7 cartridge has one end closed and the other has a plug in connection with two O-Rings and two tabs that lock the cartridge in.

  • Ok, the Tcw one looks nearly identical.

  • Pity as it is an excellent price.

  • edited July 2018

    The reason I’m confused is because the schematic here

    GSC Series™ Filter Housings - Single Cartridge Filter Series - Data Sheet (PDF)

    Looks very much like the eBay one.

  • Ok have had a look to the data sheet. The data sheet .... picture show DOE, .... BUT further on in the selection type shows DOE, 222 as well as 226 (code 7). Be sure to select the code 7 in the order and technical selection.

  • Yes, we only get the GSC housings in 226 configuration (Code 7). We prefer the extra security you get with Code 7. Namely, being able to twist and lock the filter cartridge securely into place, and two 226 o-rings for sealing. DOE filters have their place for sure, but once pressures start rising they are much easier to blow by, in our experience—particularly once users start getting into ≤ 1µ filtration.

  • edited July 2018

    80 proof. Not the greatest pic but the before on the right and after on the left. The filter works.

    image

    image.jpg
    600 x 800 - 83K
  • Wow, no kidding. That’s pretty amazing.

  • edited July 2018

    @punkin said: I still use demineralised water for proofing, but it's too exe for ferments. Perhaps RO would be cheaper and suitable?

    RO is demineralization. Any treatment process that removes dissolved solids is, e.g. distillation, ion exchange, electrodialysis, reverse osmosis.

    Deionized (DI) water is water that has been demineralized using ion exchange. Non-ionically charged impurities are not removed by ion exchange treatment.

    I'm more like I am now than I was before.

  • @jbierling said: 80 proof. Not the greatest pic but the before on the right and after on the left. The filter works.

    image

    Thanks for the update! Mind if I use the pic for our GFC product page? Happy to send a freebie filter by way of saying thanks for trying and sharing the results.

  • edited July 2018

    @MichaelAtTCW said: Thanks for the update! Mind if I use the pic for our GFC product page? Happy to send a freebie filter by way of saying thanks for trying and sharing the results.

    Please feel free and thanks for the freebie!

  • I'm just going to say that's amazing again.

  • you know what I do for chill filtration? I have a 3ft by 4 in stainless tube full of expensive ass carbon stuffed in a deep freezer full of ice and I run it on a loop until im happy with it. My science is lacking but it works and is delicious.

  • @MichaelAtTCW - ordered one to test..

    Question - It says 'pre-filter', I was going to use it after a round wine filter pad, should I use it before the other filter, that does not seem intuitive???

  • edited August 2018

    @CothermanDistilling said: MichaelAtTCW - ordered one to test..

    Question - It says 'pre-filter', I was going to use it after a round wine filter pad, should I use it before the other filter, that does not seem intuitive???

    Not quite. It's referring to the relationship between final absolute-rated filters and nominally-rated depth filters (like the GFC). Typically you'll use a nominally-rated filter like the GFC before an absolute-rated filter to catch the larger particles and to protect the final filter from clogging too quickly. That's why it's called a pre-filter. Final filters are a lot more expensive than pre-filters and don't have anywhere near the dirt-holding capacity.

    In your case the order of filters shouldn't matter. Both a round wine filter pad and the GFC are technically pre-filters. Absolute-rated final filters are not as common in the spirits world. There is not as much need in spirits to filter out spoilage micro-organisms, which is what absolute-rated filters excel at.

  • After reading everyone's comments I thought I would experiment with ten litres of my two year old rum aged in ex shiraz barrel for two years. I cooled the rum down to zero degrees celcius and 48% alcohol and ran through only 300g of carbon as fast as it would go. This rum was very dark to start off with and I cant pick the colour difference after running though the charcoal but it is a hell of a lot clearer but has the same shirazzy flavour but not quite as oaky. I think it has improved out of sight. Everyone said that it is a bad thing to do but it turned out this time. Just thought I'd share.

  • Carbon really isn't a 'filter', it is 'adsorption', the pores in the carbon create surface area for bad things(I guess good things sometimes too) 'stick to' with a chemical bond to the carbon... the pore size has a lot to do if it will take out flavor and or color, and coconut and coal carbon are very different...

    That being said, it is only a bad thing if you think it is worse than something else, like maybe a particulate filter plate pad instead of the carbon, and then it likely would have to be side-by-side..

  • The idea with filtering out some good things is that there is so much that they completely overload that range of the filter before you lose much at all. Which is why it's important that you get the right class of carbon, so that you have as few pores in the 'good' range as possible.

  • edited August 2018

    Pore size ratio is key in decolorization.

    You can decolorize with an all-purpose carbon, but by the time you go crystal clear white, it will taste like vodka too. Neither coconut nor coal work well for decolorization of spirits. Likewise, using a soft wood carbon (high macropore/low micropore) for filtering vodka would be worthless.

  • @MichaelAtTCW - What are the recommended storage procedures between uses?

    I think I hosed my filter, first 3 uses were awesome, however a month later, there is almost no flow now, and I have maybe filtered 50-100gal of spirits through it... I rinsed it and set it to dry after the first three uses... since it was PP/glass Thinking maybe I should use vodka or 50/50 vodka and water as a storage solution? I am going to try a 170 degree PBW to see if it is just organic material from previous runs that I did not notice slowing it down, because I only looked at flow at the beginning...

  • @CothermanDistilling said: MichaelAtTCW - What are the recommended storage procedures between uses?

    I think I hosed my filter, first 3 uses were awesome, however a month later, there is almost no flow now, and I have maybe filtered 50-100gal of spirits through it... I rinsed it and set it to dry after the first three uses... since it was PP/glass Thinking maybe I should use vodka or 50/50 vodka and water as a storage solution? I am going to try a 170 degree PBW to see if it is just organic material from previous runs that I did not notice slowing it down, because I only looked at flow at the beginning...

    If you're clogging after 50-100 gallons you might want to put a coarser filter upfront, or backflush earlier (if you are backflushing). Are you using 10, 20 or 30"?

    Graver's storage, cleaning and regeneration procedures are pretty thorough and easy to follow. I've attached the PDF here:

    Graver Cartridge Regeneration Procedures for Wine & Beer Applications (PDF)

    Key takeaways are to store the filter in a sanitizing or oxidizing solution only if storage is for a few days/weeks max. If you are storing for longer than a few weeks, let them dry completely and store them in clean plastic bags.

    Monitoring the pressure differential during the filter's life is helpful. If you're trying to get the most out of a filter it's best to backflush at about 30% of its max differential pressure. So, if it is considered totally clogged at 30 psid, try backflushing at about 10 psid.

    Make sense? Call me if not.

    pdf
    pdf
    TB-008 Filter Regeneration.pdf
    83K
Sign In or Register to comment.