ProCap83

I've been having trouble with my current 8" setup with bubble caps (lots of flooding), and thinking of upgrading, maybe going from 8 bubble plates to 4 ProCap83 plates. Anyone using a ProCap83 on an 8" have any feedback, especially the upper limit of power for a single ProCap83?

Comments

  • Might help if you have more details on your setup? How much power etc

  • Just for a scale reference, the big ProCaps on a 12" plate lay out about like the smaller ProCaps on a 4" plate.

    An 8" plate seems about like the odd man out in terms of size.

    A single larger ProCap fits on a 6" diameter pretty nicely.

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • The boiler is 1000lt so oversized for an 8", and has 4 2" ports for elements so a max of about 40kw depending on which elements I use.

  • I don't think a 1000L is too small for an 8' column necessarily. 8" column with the smaller ProCaps will run 35 liters an hour nicely.

    70 watts per liter for a 1 hour heat up 35 watts per liter for a 2 hour heat up

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • I would be getting to the root cause of your flooding issue before changing your setup. How do you normally run?

    I know when I have flooding issues (smaller scale though) its due to running to much reflux or to much heat. Normally I slowly dial down the reflux until my output percent decreases and then adjust power if required.

  • I think the flooding issue is caused because the caps are providing too much resistance vs the downcomers. As soon as I up to 12kw the downcomers stop draining and liquid holds up on each plate.

    I'm able to run about 12lt an hour of 91% at the moment,

    Note, I'm not sure that the bubble caps are StillDragon, as the column was purchased secondhand.

  • You could add additional downcomers to each plate (and see if thst helps) or drill a small hole to help with drainage.

    If its normal bubble caps and not the ProCaps36 then that sounds like your limitation.

    @punkin whats the max power you can throw at an 8"? And whats the general LPH people get?

  • edited April 10

    @Smaug would know better than me, but the flow ranges from 20L/h tpo 60L/h depending on your product and style with ProCaps. I don't supply any of the AU columns with regular caps nowadays, a few 4" ones but I'm going to stop stocking them.

    I do know that some of my customers have had trouble with the 5-star caps as when they copied ours it was before @Smaug tweaked the designs to allow more flow.

    StillDragon Australia & New Zealand - Your StillDragon® Distributor for Australia & New Zealand

  • jon
    edited April 10

    @punkin or @Smaug I assume that 20L/h to 60L/h is for the regular ProCaps36, would single ProCap83 be at the higher or lower end of that range?

  • edited April 10

    Hi @jon,

    I don't think we have enough data to draw any conclusions yet.

    @grim likely has the most runs under his belt with the larger ProCap. But even then he is running 12" plates populated with 3 of the larger ProCaps.

    I'll know more soon as the continuous system on the way to Huntington Beach has single ProCap83s in the 6" rectifier. But the tees are 10" tall so the pressure associated with bad hydraulic behavior will be a bit more forgiving.

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • Also, @CothermanDistilling has a bunch of 8" stuff and likes to tinker so he is a good candidate to characterize the optimal operation range of the 8" diameter.

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • @Smaug said: Also, CothermanDistilling has a bunch of 8" stuff and likes to tinker so he is a good candidate to characterize the optimal operation range of the 8" diameter.

    I have been running the piss out of my 30-plate 8" CD with ProCap36's.... I have both the early design and later design ProCap36's (1/2" vs 5/8" tall, respectively). I do have risers on the old style to raise the bed height. I run a 4500 and a 6000W element when collecting and keep my RC at about 120F with a proportional valve that meters flow through a 200kbtu water/air heat exchanger.. the proportional valve is usually between 60 to 90% open, opening more as vapor temp below the RC raises. I am getting a little less than 20L/hr at 190-191, and if I drop to 188, I can double the output rate...

    I am turning molasses into 190 as fast as I can, I am bottling some sanitizer for local sales and transferring 55wg/100PG at a time to another local distillery that is combining it with his and selling larger containers to larger customers.

    If you have old school bubble caps, and have 18? holes, maybe swap another cap for a downcomer per plate to stop flooding... also, it is time consuming, but you can 'port' the downcomers by taking the sharp edges and smoothing the restrictions on the liquid flow... also, you have the downcomers grouped and alternating from side to side, correct? you want to get the cross-flow of the liquid before it goes down to the next plate if possible..

    Another option would be to enlarge one hole to fit 3/4" copper tube and have it stick out the top the depth you want the liquid, and stick out the bottom so it is submerged below the liquid level... you might be able to do two 1/2" copper pipes and not permanently affect the plate... (might)

  • jon
    edited April 19

    I'm pretty sure it's not a draining problem, it's a pressure problem caused by the bubble caps. Often I only have 1 or 2 of the downcomers draining the rest have vapour forcing up them.

    10.5 kW seems low for 12 ProCaps, especially when you don't care about quality / separation, although that output seems high. Your 188 proof takeoff is 4 times my 182 rate and I'm using about 70% of the power. I think I used to run my 3 ProCap setups at 4 kW for rum after pulling off heads.

    Is there a reason you going to 190 proof for hand sanitizer, if you could double output at a lower rate, I'm supplying at 180 and they still easily able to create the WHO recipe.

  • you are not legally making the right hand sanitizer if you are not using 190...... FDA rules...

    Temporary Policy for Preparation of Certain Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Products During the Public Health Emergency (COVID-19)Guidance for Industry (PDF)

    see page 3 - "94.9% ethanol by volume"

  • Also, if you use a calculator such as Hand Sanitizer Calculator @ HoochWare, it warns you if you put in less than 94.9%...

  • @CothermanDistilling said: you are not legally making the right hand sanitizer if you are not using 190...... FDA rules...

    Temporary Policy for Preparation of Certain Alcohol-Based Hand Sanitizer Products During the Public Health Emergency (COVID-19)Guidance for Industry (PDF)

    see page 3 - "94.9% ethanol by volume"

    I think it’s important to note for USA producers that @CothermanDistilling is giving incomplete information on the 94.9% number.

    If you will refer to footnote 8 on the same page it clearly says that lower percent alcohol may be used as long as it is on the label and that the percentage does not drop below 80%

    Perhaps some corrections should be noted in the appropriate threads?

    If you read the WHO original formula document it talks about 75-85% being the most effective range for alcohol percentage of the formula. This deliberately provides a margin of error for developing nations, field conditions and places where accurate weight and measuring devices are not available or not used correctly.

  • edited May 2

    Be careful with that, there are two issues, purity and proof. I thought they reduced the standard to account for alcohol distilled to a lower purity, but reading the footnote, I'm no longer convinced.

    (8) This is consistent with the USP and FCC grade requirements for purity. Lower ethanol content alcohol falls within this policy so long as it is labeled accordingly, and the finished hand sanitizer meets the ethanol concentration of 80%.

    This is not clear. If they are saying that USP and FCC grade requirements for purity still apply, and that you need to be consistent with requirements, they would be talking about using 94.9% ethanol that was diluted to a lower proof, not ethanol distilled at a lower proof (less pure).

  • and "labeled accordingly"..

Sign In or Register to comment.