Rigging Multiple Blichmann Beer Guns

[Bokonon]

agreed, would not be difficult.
Are you wanting to run them all from different kegs or the same one?
Really doesn't matter, all you would have to do is put splitters inline from one connection for same keg.

I'm not certain it would be as simple as this. I suspect you would need to make sure they all have exactly the same length tubing and an equal path on some kind of manifold. Otherwise if you just put splitters in the first bottle might fill slightly quicker than the last bottle.

[Ozwald]

I was assuming the whole time it was off from one keg considering it's for bottling a 2bbl/nano batch. I would imagine you'd be bottling directly off a pressurized bright tank. As for balance, keep the splitters as close to the guns as possible, use a pair of 1 in 4 out manifolds & equal lengths of tubing from those. Might take a little tweaking here & there, but I would think you could come up with something after dicking around with it for a while.

Those guns aren't cheap & are designed to be used by hand. I would think with a bit of planning you could design your own 4 head filler for the same cost or probably less. Not to mention it'd be designed to use as a 4 head & not by hand which would take a lot of variables out when you need to troubleshoot - which you tend to do a lot of on any filling system, in my experience. I can't recall who exactly, but I remember seeing a home built 4 head CP filler at a small brewery/beer bar. They were only bottling a few from a select number of batches so it worked perfectly for them. Controls were similar to the beergun only mounted in a better place for operating 4 at a time. Didn't see it in action, but I pointed it out, made a friendly joke & they were pretty proud of it.

[CRBrewHound]

agreed, would not be difficult.
Are you wanting to run them all from different kegs or the same one?
Really doesn't matter, all you would have to do is put splitters inline from one connection for same keg.

I'm not certain it would be as simple as this. I suspect you would need to make sure they all have exactly the same length tubing and an equal path on some kind of manifold. Otherwise if you just put splitters in the first bottle might fill slightly quicker than the last bottle.

Ok, think I am starting to get the picture now, a make shift 5 head bottle filler.

Guess I would need to see it as you have to lower the heads to the bottom of the bottles. So this gets really complicated fast. All heads would have to be able to slide down to an fairly exact distance in the bottle.

It would work properly if you did 4 or 8 using "Y" splitters, and ensured that the lines were the same length and the splits were at the same positions on each side so it would split from 1 to 2, then 2 to 4 (then 4 to 8 for eight head). You would have to have a fairly large discrepancy in the tubing to make this an issue. As even the pressure difference over a foot of distance is not that great.

One way I would think to do it would be will a selenoid valve and float switch on each filler head, then you are filling to volume, not by time. Then distances don't matter. The problem then becomes how do you keep the valves closed when you pull up the heads you would probably have to have a master line valve that is only opened when the heads are in their down position. Which would not be hard to build valve would be an electrical connection that is made when handle comes to rest in down position.

[BDawg]

A Gatling Beer Gun!

[Ozwald]

agreed, would not be difficult.
Are you wanting to run them all from different kegs or the same one?
Really doesn't matter, all you would have to do is put splitters inline from one connection for same keg.

I'm not certain it would be as simple as this. I suspect you would need to make sure they all have exactly the same length tubing and an equal path on some kind of manifold. Otherwise if you just put splitters in the first bottle might fill slightly quicker than the last bottle.

Ok, think I am starting to get the picture now, a make shift 5 head bottle filler.

Guess I would need to see it as you have to lower the heads to the bottom of the bottles. So this gets really complicated fast. All heads would have to be able to slide down to an fairly exact distance in the bottle.

It would work properly if you did 4 or 8 using "Y" splitters, and ensured that the lines were the same length and the splits were at the same positions on each side so it would split from 1 to 2, then 2 to 4 (then 4 to 8 for eight head). You would have to have a fairly large discrepancy in the tubing to make this an issue. As even the pressure difference over a foot of distance is not that great.

One way I would think to do it would be will a selenoid valve and float switch on each filler head, then you are filling to volume, not by time. Then distances don't matter. The problem then becomes how do you keep the valves closed when you pull up the heads you would probably have to have a master line valve that is only opened when the heads are in their down position. Which would not be hard to build valve would be an electrical connection that is made when handle comes to rest in down position.

I think you're over thinking it. You can obviously wrap your mind around the problem, so why not just design something more effective from scratch instead of having to deal with/work around the beer guns design?

[CRBrewHound]

Ok, think I am starting to get the picture now, a make shift 5 head bottle filler.

Guess I would need to see it as you have to lower the heads to the bottom of the bottles. So this gets really complicated fast. All heads would have to be able to slide down to an fairly exact distance in the bottle.

It would work properly if you did 4 or 8 using "Y" splitters, and ensured that the lines were the same length and the splits were at the same positions on each side so it would split from 1 to 2, then 2 to 4 (then 4 to 8 for eight head). You would have to have a fairly large discrepancy in the tubing to make this an issue. As even the pressure difference over a foot of distance is not that great.

One way I would think to do it would be will a selenoid valve and float switch on each filler head, then you are filling to volume, not by time. Then distances don't matter. The problem then becomes how do you keep the valves closed when you pull up the heads you would probably have to have a master line valve that is only opened when the heads are in their down position. Which would not be hard to build valve would be an electrical connection that is made when handle comes to rest in down position.

I think you're over thinking it. You can obviously wrap your mind around the problem, so why not just design something more effective from scratch instead of having to deal with/work around the beer guns design?

Its the curse of an engineer, plus shit like that is a large reason why I engjoy brewing so much. I am always tinkering and building something new for the brewery.

[Ozwald]

Ok, think I am starting to get the picture now, a make shift 5 head bottle filler.

Guess I would need to see it as you have to lower the heads to the bottom of the bottles. So this gets really complicated fast. All heads would have to be able to slide down to an fairly exact distance in the bottle.

It would work properly if you did 4 or 8 using "Y" splitters, and ensured that the lines were the same length and the splits were at the same positions on each side so it would split from 1 to 2, then 2 to 4 (then 4 to 8 for eight head). You would have to have a fairly large discrepancy in the tubing to make this an issue. As even the pressure difference over a foot of distance is not that great.

One way I would think to do it would be will a selenoid valve and float switch on each filler head, then you are filling to volume, not by time. Then distances don't matter. The problem then becomes how do you keep the valves closed when you pull up the heads you would probably have to have a master line valve that is only opened when the heads are in their down position. Which would not be hard to build valve would be an electrical connection that is made when handle comes to rest in down position.

I think you're over thinking it. You can obviously wrap your mind around the problem, so why not just design something more effective from scratch instead of having to deal with/work around the beer guns design?

Its the curse of an engineer, plus shit like that is a large reason why I engjoy brewing so much. I am always tinkering and building something new for the brewery.

I'm not an engineer but I saw one on TV last night.... errr... I mean I do the same thing. When I do a project, the act of designing it & taking the time on each step is a lot of the fun. I just started working on a 7 tap keezer last month. I'm guessing I might be done with it in 12-14 months. Partly because I'm going way over the top with it, partly because it's being paid for with the extra money in the brewing budget & partly because I like to work on things like Gibbs (NCIS character).

That's why I suggest backtracking instead of retrofitting/reverse engineering. The beer gun is designed with 1 bottle in mind, for use with a hand in a pistol type grip. The controls are laid out for that kind of use. Now why reverse engineer it into something that could be built & designed much easier from scratch. My thinking would have to start with is this going to have a static head or 'floor' where either the bottles could be moved up to the filling heads or the filling heads down into the bottle. Or is it going to be a hand operated deal. You could make any of those 3 work very easily & each would have it's own unique way of placing the lines & controls for ergonomic use. I'm also thinking about parts. The beer gun has the tube-in-tube design, again it works beautifully when used as intended. I don't really see it being necessary or all that helpful on a 4 head filler, especially if you're going with a moveable head or 'floor'. I could see buying a couple of straight corny diptubes & fashioning them much easier. Yada yada yada. This is starting to sound like a fun project to work on... damn you, I've got other shit to build first

[CRBrewHound]

agreed, all except the "no need for the tube in a tube" being helpful.
Does not have to be that design, but for commercial systems it is more important then ever to flush with CO2.