Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Moonshiners' 'Thumpers': Myth or Reality?

Moonshiners' 'Thumpers': Myth or Reality?

Pages: 1 .. 5 6 7 8

blogfast25 - 20-3-2015 at 07:07

I believe that you got false readings because of the presence of contaminants (e.g ketones, other alcohols, whatever) that skew the result, so-called matrix effects in analytical chemistry. You would need to calibrate with those contaminants present in order to get accurate readings, but that is off course not practical, but just saying.

If the problem is contaminants that skew the readings (and it seems very likely) then the solution is to use pure EtOH/water mixtures.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming "I did this (and a few of my mates did so too)" just isn't near enough good.

manganese - 20-3-2015 at 12:06

Dear Mr blogfast25, yiu are right extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. and just tall talk isnt the answer, one should be able to deliver what one claims and commits .

Loptr - 20-3-2015 at 12:29

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by deltaH

I don't think you will be able to accomplish this from a single stage mash distillation. It is very likely there are significant amounts of byproduct that were co-distilled with the ethanol and water mixture. Unless you are fractionating, I don't see how there couldn't also be a few other things in the distillate. Significant as in enough to skew readings.

Is it also likely that one of these contaminants could contribute to surpassing the azeotrope? If what Zombie says about watching his hydrometer dropping back to azeotrope is true, what could account for this behavior? What else could be absorbing water, or could have caused the ethanol to be in higher quantity?

As with any application of systems theory, there are usually far many more variables than is obvious or that we can actually account for.

I start to think about when you are attempting to break azeotrope by distilling with a desiccating agent, such as calcium oxide, and it hit me that it could be possible that something else in the mixture could contribute to the same end, by messing with the dynamics of the mixture.

[Edited on 20-3-2015 by Loptr]

Fulmen - 20-3-2015 at 12:42

Quote: Originally posted by aga

show us the test certs

At some point we have to take a man at his word, if Mr. Zombie says he has them calibrated it's good enough for me. Unless he's deliberately lying (in which case this whole debate is worthless) I don't see the point in second-guessing this.

That being said, his claims of breaking the azeo and the actual numbers are still up for grabs as far as I'm concerned. Having spent a couple of decades in a lab I know that calibrated equipment is only half the analysis, and in my experience hydrometers can be tricky.
Have anybody here ever participated in a ring test? Reviewing the numbers from other labs shows just exactly how imperfect analytical chemistry can be, you'd be surprised how much variation that can be tolerated.
So let me ask you this question Zombie: Have you tested your method on any known standards? And since your equipment seems to be based on proof strength, what was the actual reading in proof?

aga - 20-3-2015 at 13:03

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

when you are attempting to break azeotrope by distilling with a desiccating agent, such as calcium oxide, and it hit me

Perhaps that is a 'secret', and the billies put some sort of desiccating agent or third/fourth/fifth agent in there that can affect or participate in the azeotrope.

Ah crap. It's all Guessing.

@Zombie: please don't take the lack of belief in your claims as anything other than Scientific minds refusing to Believe anything at all without hard data to back up that belief.

Nobody is saying you're lying.

The consensus is currently that your claims are groundless, in that your experience has not been replicated by at least two others, following the same procedures, and arriving at near enough the same results, with hard data (measurements) to prove it.

Seems to me that a thumper works as advertised, near as damnit, yet i may have just got lucky, measured the wrong thing, gotten drunk while experimenting, read the refractometer upside down etc etc.

blogfast25 - 20-3-2015 at 13:27

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen

Have anybody here ever participated in a ring test? Reviewing the numbers from other labs shows just exactly how imperfect analytical chemistry can be, you'd be surprised how much variation that can be tolerated.

Yes, on one intra-lab comparison of methods. It was a humbling experience but not surprising.

Magpie - 20-3-2015 at 13:52

Quote: Originally posted by aga

The FeedStock for all experiments was 500ml of cheap 37.5 w% Vodka diluted with DIW to give 1875ml of 10 w% EtOH/Water (as measured by the refractometer).

Let's keep in mind what the feedstock was. It's not Sigma 4nines absolute ethanol but it's certainly not corn wash either. My point being, how much extraneous organics (aldehydes, ketones, esters, other alcohols, etc) can we really expect to find in cheap vodka? Enough to cause the azeotrope to disappear? I'm doubtful.

But that is a separate issue from Zombie's claims with his own equipment where I presume his feed was a grain wash.

[Edited on 20-3-2015 by Magpie]

[Edited on 20-3-2015 by Magpie]

[Edited on 21-3-2015 by Magpie]

aga - 20-3-2015 at 14:05

The feedstock certainly has aromatics added - it smells of things other than EtOH.

Only 1 of each experiment was done, and by the Forum Drunkard, so the results should be regarded as a bit of additional information rather than Gospel truth.

More experiments to follow, hopefully with more useful data.

Fulmen - 20-3-2015 at 14:13

As it was commercial vodka I'm sure there is data on the actual purity available. Certainly someone has run a bunch of vodkas through a GC before?

aga - 20-3-2015 at 14:15

If only some member had a Gas Chromatograph at their disposal !

Fulmen - 20-3-2015 at 14:28

This should provide some data:
http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&am...

blogfast25 - 20-3-2015 at 16:50

Initial verification of the refractometer with various dilutions of said vodka showed good correlation between predicted and observed ABV values, which tentatively suggests that contaminants did not play a major part in aga's experiments and their outcomes. Invoking any unknown interactions between contaminants and EtOH seems a little far fetched at this point.

For further elimination of any non-EtOH, non-water components, a batch of vodka could be distilled (with a Vigreux column for instance), retaining only the middle fraction of the azeotropic distillate as new feedstock of any future thumper experiments.

Thanks for that link, Fulmen.

[Edited on 21-3-2015 by blogfast25]

Magpie - 20-3-2015 at 17:22

FYI, Figure 3 of Fulmen's linked document indicates 1350 ppm of non-ethanol organics in a typical "alcoholic beverage," or 0.135%.

aga - 21-3-2015 at 07:12

Suck-back Problem Solved.

It really is simply a matter of keeping the output of the boiling pot going at a high enough rate.

Using a 250ml RBF as the boiling pot allowed the transfer pipe to be 30% shorter.
Adding Al foil insulation to the whole thing also helps, mostly on the boiling pot.

Anyway, this rig now thumps properly with no suck-back, and exhibits some strange behaviour.

Data will be shared as soon as some sense can be made of it.

Crowfjord - 22-3-2015 at 11:17

Although not finished, I thought I would post some preliminary results from my trials this weekend. Since I couldn't justify buying an alcohol refractometer that I would probably only use once, I opted for a little less accuracy and measured density of the distillate using a graduated cylinder and a scale. I used this table to determine ethanol concentration from density.

The feedstock was a wash prepared from brown sugar, molasses and water, fermented to about 4.6 ABV, or about 3.4 % ethanol by weight (assuming density of ethanol as 0.785 g/mL).

The boiling pot was a 2000 mL round bottom flask, the thumper was a 500 mL three-neck round bottom flask. The pot was connected to the thumper via a rubber septum, a 6 mm o.d. x 4 mm i.d. copper tube running to the bottom of the thumper, and a PTFE thermometer adapter in the center neck. One side neck was plugged with a rubber septum, and the other housed a distillation head with a thermometer. The still head was connected to a Liebig condenser. Heating was done with a Corning hotplate/stirrer. The still head was insulated with aluminum foil for all experiments. No suckback ever occurred until distillation was finished and the heat was removed.

Practice Run:1500 mL wash in the pot, 250 mL in thumper: Large (~3 to 5 mm diameter) bubbles were released in the thumper as dissolved carbon dioxide was released from the wash, then the bubbles were much smaller (0.5 to 2 mm) as the pot began to boil in earnest. The liquid level in the thumper rose as vapor from the pot came over, then bubbles increased in size again as distillate began to come through the condenser. The temperature in the head fluctuated between 82-87 degrees C until adjusted to 81-83 degrees. The distillation was stopped the thumper was full. A total of 21 mL of distillate were collected, with a density of 0.857 g/mL, corresponding to about 71% to 73%
ethanol by weight (not correcting for other volatiles).

Run 2: 1500 mL pot, 200 mL in thumper. The pot was heated slowly and carefully, in order to watch the temperature in the still head slowly climb. ~0.9 mL of distillate were collected below 80 degrees C. This was discarded. The thumper filled as before; in order to prolong the run, the thumper was siphoned back down to ~250 mL once it had filled. At this point a total of 30 mL of distillate had come over. Not counting the initial low-boiling discard, two fractions were collected, each of 20 mL.
F1: d = 0.852 at 25 degrees C, [EtOH] = ~74% by weight.
F2: d = 0.841 at 25 degrees C, [EtOH] = ~80% by weight.

Simple distillation, practice run: Setup was for standard distillation, with the usual glass: 2000 mL pot, connected to the still head with thermometer, which was in turn connected to the Liebig condenser. 1500 mL wash was added to the pot and heated. It was more difficult to control the temperature in the head here than with the thumper. After distillation began, the first ~ 1 mL was discarded as before; the temperature went up over a few minutes to ~92 degrees C, and 5 mL distilled over before the heat was removed and the setup was allowed to cool a little before trying again with gentler heating. This time, the lowest temperature achieved while still maintaining a slow distillation (about 3 to 5 drops per minute) was 84 degrees. The temperature slowly rose to 92 degrees over the course of the distillation. Two 16 mL fractions were collected.
F1: d = 0.874 at 25 degrees C, [EtOH] = ~66% by weight
F2: d = 0.889 at 25 degrees C, [EtOH] = ~60% by weight

I am going to continue the experiment next weekend, when I have time again, the simple distillation could definitely stand to have better temperature control. The measurements are fairly crude, but they were all done the same way, with the same equipment. I am open to questions, comments and suggestions on the experimental protocol, within the limits of my materials and equipment.

[Edited on 22-3-2015 by Crowfjord]

aga - 22-3-2015 at 11:36

Nice one Crowfjord.

Photos !

Crowfjord - 22-3-2015 at 11:43

The lens is scratched, so the photos are not great quality, but here are a couple of the thumper setup.

aga - 22-3-2015 at 12:33

Brill. Thanks.

Edit :

The transfer pipe goes down to near the bottom of the thumper right ?

[Edited on 22-3-2015 by aga]

[Edited on 22-3-2015 by aga]

Crowfjord - 22-3-2015 at 13:18

Yes, it does. There is only ~1 mm of space between the bottom of the copper tube and and the bottom of the 500 mL "thumper" flask.

Thumper/No Thumper distillation comparison

blogfast25 - 29-3-2015 at 12:47

I’m reporting here the conditions and conclusions of Aga’s experiments with thumper/no thumper stillpot distillations using the apparatus described in the posts above (in near-identical conditions for both runs), based on raw data he supplied me over the weekend.

Initial suck-back problems from the thumper were resolved by increasing distillation speed somewhat. A short video of the vapour passing through the thumper liquid can be found at http://www.vxwifi.co.uk/thump.MOV (during a separate test run).

The thumper experiment was run with an initially room temperature and empty thumper which gradually filled up during distillation, until vapour started bubbling through it.

During distillation, distillate samples of approx.1.5 ml were collected and weighed. In most cases these had to be diluted with about the same amount of water (to allow measurement with the refractometer). This amount of water was also weighed. From the diluted ABV values, both weights and a density correction factor (the densities of the distillate and water are not identical), the actual distillate ABV was then calculated.

The data also allowed calculation of distillation rates but considerable data scatter made drawing significant conclusions difficult. Broadly speaking distillation rates in both experiments were comparable.

Initially the stillpot in both distillations held 200 ml of 9 ABV % EtOH (diluted Vodka, then measured).

Basic data:

With thumper: distillate started coming over about 22 minutes after start of heating, In total about 23 ml of distillate was collected with an average (calculated) ABV % of about 61. Remaining pot and thumper liquids at the end of the distillation were essentially EtOH free. Mass balances in EtOH tallied satisfactorily.

Without thumper: distillate started coming over about 14 minutes after start of heating, In total about 23 ml of distillate was collected with an average (calculated) ABV % of about 48. This enrichment is very roughly in accordance with 1 theoretical plate.

The most important metric is the ABV (%) vs Distillate Volume graphs for both distillations below.

Conclusion:

The improved EtOH enrichment during the thumper run is highly significant.

Acknowledgement: I want to thank Aga again for his work and persistence in completing this experiment, which to an unsuspecting onlooker may seem far simpler than it actually is. Without them, this investigation would not have been possible.

[Edited on 30-3-2015 by blogfast25]

Crowfjord - 29-3-2015 at 13:15

Nice work, gentlemen! Well done, both of you!

I did a couple more simple distillation runs this weekend, and our results seem to agree with one another, despite my crude quantitation. I was never able to get a distillate richer than 66%(w/w) ethanol with simple distillation, and that was with distillate passing over excruiatingly slowly.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 29-3-2015 at 13:25

Brilliant! Fantastic work aga, and nice job putting it all together, blogfast.

blogfast25 - 29-3-2015 at 13:27

Crowfjord:

Nice work!

Did you calculate the amount of sugar in the ‘mash’ to give about 5 % ABV after fermentation?

Density measurements are fine of course. It could be informative to repeat your procedure several times with distilled or deionised water to get an idea of accuracy/repeatability. Wiki lists the EtOH density as 0.789 g/cm<sup>3</sup>, not 0.785 BTW.

Tentatively it appears your thumper contributes less to enrichment than aga’s. I wonder, again tentatively, whether starting with an empty thumper gives an advantage here.

aga - 29-3-2015 at 13:46

The thumper liquid is never cold if you start with an empty thumper, so perhaps that has a beneficial effect.

It'd be an idea to try it with a heated thumper too, although i suspect the temperature of the input from the boiling pot is important as well (never much more than EtOH's B.P.)

Crowfjord - 29-3-2015 at 13:53

My mash had about 4.6% ABV, going from gravity to estimate change in sugars. I have checked my graduated cylinder with distilled water before, and found it to be accurate to within 0.5 mL, but I should do it again to make sure.
The density I used came from the ethanol-water density chart I linked above, for ethanol at 25 degrees C, which was the temperature at which I took all of my measurements, give or take about 2 degrees.

I suspect that starting with an empty thumper would result in greater enrichment, at least early in the run. I still have some wash left, so I might give it a go next weekend.
As mentioned up thread, thumper volume relative to that of the pot probably contributes to the effects on the concentration of the distillate. That, and our different starting ethanol concentrations probably contributed to our differing enrichment rates.

blogfast25 - 29-3-2015 at 13:57

Quote: Originally posted by aga

The thumper liquid is never cold if you start with an empty thumper, so perhaps that has a beneficial effect.

It'd be an idea to try it with a heated thumper too, although i suspect the temperature of the input from the boiling pot is important as well (never much more than EtOH's B.P.)

I was thinking the following. Your data (from the no thumper run) show that the first say 10 ml comes over at say 50 % ABV. If you had cold, say 50 ml of 9 % ABV in there that would mix and you'd end with say 60 ml of about 17 % ABV. Without any 'wash' in the thumper that would be about 50 % ABV.

Thanks ES!

Help! How do I prevent this graph now appearing in every post??

[Edited on 29-3-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 29-3-2015 at 14:01

A biggie is the continuous stream of vapour from the boiling pot to keep the thumper bubbling steadily.

The steadier your boiling pot runs, the smoother the thumper temperature will be, which appeared to affect the output concentration.

Makes sense i guess : a quick burst of heat and more distillate happens too fast, entraining water.

Anyone seen Zombie recently ?

Finally we're agreeing with him !

aga - 29-3-2015 at 14:04

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Help! How do I prevent this graph now appearing in every post??

Erm, next time you reply, check at the bottom of the page to see if there is a file selected for upload.

If so, remove it.

blogfast25 - 29-3-2015 at 14:11

Quote: Originally posted by aga

erm, next time you reply, check at the bottom of the page to see if there is a file selected for upload.

If so, remove it.

Like so. Ta.

[Edited on 29-3-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 29-3-2015 at 14:19

Quote: Originally posted by aga

A biggie is the continuous stream of vapour from the boiling pot to keep the thumper bubbling steadily.

The steadier your boiling pot runs, the smoother the thumper temperature will be, which appeared to affect the output concentration.

Makes sense i guess : a quick burst of heat and more distillate happens too fast, entraining water.

Firstly, thumper temperature will always be relatively smooth because of thermal inertia. That cup of coffee you're having in the morning doesn't plummet IMMEDIATELY to RT either, just because you're not heating it or even blowing on it.

The effect of working in non-equilibrium conditions (very fast distillation) isn't so easy to predict but mechanical entrainment is one possibility. That would make the leaving stream of vapour/mist less rich in EtOH than in strict equilibrium conditions. But the effect is likely to be fairly small.

[Edited on 29-3-2015 by blogfast25]

Magpie - 29-3-2015 at 16:34

Very nice work, boys! - very professional.

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Anyone seen Zombie recently ?

No.

My guess is that he is off to the lab trying to renew his "I Broke the Azeotrope" badge.

blogfast25 - 29-3-2015 at 17:05

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

Very nice work, boys! - very professional.

Thanks Magpie.

I'm working on breaking the azeotrope myself, as a GRQ scheme!

[Edited on 30-3-2015 by blogfast25]

deltaH - 29-3-2015 at 21:11

Nice work y'all

I liked your graph, blogfast, very much!

blogfast25 - 30-3-2015 at 05:28

Thanks deltaH.

aga - 30-3-2015 at 12:03

In answer to the OP's question, Thumper Theory is a Reality not a Myth.

Add a used jam jar and a couple of pipes to your 'shine rig to get much stronger booze, and an easy way to tell when all the Good Stuff is in the sippin' jar.

Remarkable ingenuity really, truly remarkable.

Perhaps time to take a look at the 'Shake-a-Bottle' notion for ABV determination.

blogfast25 - 30-3-2015 at 13:51

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Add a used jam jar and a couple of pipes to your 'shine rig to get much stronger booze, and an easy way to tell when all the Good Stuff is in the sippin' jar.

Remarkable ingenuity really, truly remarkable.

Perhaps time to take a look at the 'Shake-a-Bottle' notion for ABV determination.

Looking at some of the designs I linked to above, their jam jars would fill up very fast though. And it would still be advisable to actually test some of these contraptions.

The 'shake-a-bottle' method works to distinguish between 'low proof' and 'high proof', no question about it; the surface tension of a high proof 'likker' is lower than a low proof one and thus bubbles are longer lasting. No mystery. But would you use that trick for the sort of experiment you've just performed? I think the answer is 'no'. Most moonshiners now use hygrometers. I know, cos' I watch 'Moonshiners' (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/moonshiners/).

Sadly it's more about Shiners and the Larw than about distillation techniques. Oh, the dumbing down!

[Edited on 30-3-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 30-3-2015 at 14:06

Can't imagine why they'd not use a refractometer seeing as they're affordable, easier to use, and require about 0.2ml of likker max = saves on likker hot dicketty dang.

blogfast25 - 30-3-2015 at 14:37

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Can't imagine why they'd not use a refractometer seeing as they're affordable, easier to use, and require about 0.2ml of likker max = saves on likker hot dicketty dang.

They throw the sample likker back into the distillate pot anyway. It's also possible that alcohol refractometers in some US moonshine hotspots may be prohibited. I mean why would you want such a gizmo, if it wasn't for mischief, eh?

That seems to be the reasoning re. lab glassware in some states, so maybe also here? Anyroads, I'm just speculating.

It would also be interesting to try the thumper system on another binary system.

[Edited on 30-3-2015 by blogfast25]

Magpie - 30-3-2015 at 19:49

A thumper should work on any binary system. After all it is just a second stage. It's especially effective with the ethanol/water system because of the shape of the VLE curve. Ie, it has a big bulge on the starting end.

Zombie - 31-3-2015 at 16:05

Sorry I missed sooooo much of this.

I'm glad to see all are in agreement as to what is actually happening in the system, and why it works.

The advantage of having a partially filled thumper is the hot vapor will strip EtOh from the thumper and increase the ABV or mole fraction of the vapor.
Starting with an empty thumper only delays that reaction. The increase you are seeing with an empty thump is due to the higher ABV once it fills enough to work.
It's similar to beginning with 50% ABV in the thumper. Lots of shiners do just that. Fill the thump with high proof liquor, and have a much higher end result.

Now for the Azeo thing. I don't have a scanner or camera to post my Certs., and because distilling is illegal here posting a picture of a still I claim as mine is about the same as picts of a Meth Lab.
I like my freedom too much.

The still I do have experience with is a dual column rig. I explained this here before. It is a concentric column, and perhaps the only practical one ever built.

The outer column (stripping column) is 6" diameter containing 4) 10% hole space sieve plates, and 2) structured packing sections made from #6 mesh screen layered 6 high in an accordion fashion.

The inner column (rectifier) is 4" Dia., containing 14" of random packing (copper mesh) and 4) of the 4"structured screen packing sections. There are centering rings between each packed section.

All of the spent wash from the outer column is returned to the boiler, and the spent from the rectifier is dumped into a re-boiler in the center of the main boiler.

A full year of number crunching went into making this unit work. It is designed as a fuel Ethanol column, and not as a hootch still.

The wash I use is always the same... 75Lbs. of refined sugar, 30 gallons of distilled water, 4oz. Brewers yeast, and 4oz. of Miracle Grow Plant food. This mix yields 35 gallons of 12% wash, and 3 gallons of 96% finished EtOH.

After 1/2 hour of stabilization (in the column, before collection begins) the first to last collected drops will read 98% or 196 proof. It takes anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours to stabilize at 96% or 192 proof.

Getting back to the pot/thumper... The only key or trick to distilling is controlling the heat to minimize water vapor from forming. Yes some is always carried over in the EtOH due to the Azeotrope. It can be reduced depending on the amount of fuesil oils in the mash/wash, and careful heat graduation.
ALL stills work on graduation. The right amount of heat at the right places make the difference between a clunker still or an engineered still.
Pot stills can be engineered to work correctly.
Look at all the top Whiskey distilleries from Scotland.... They have caps, and Lyne arms that have been developed over centuries. They never applied math or any form of engineering but they can make azeotrope from a simple pot solely due to the design of the vapor path.

Anyway... I'm glad to be back posting. I spent the last week on a 28' Morgan sailboat, delivering it to a customer in the Keys. Dry land is good. Whiskey is better, and seeing that the Thump. mystery has been solved is best.

Much respect to all of you that worked so hard to sort this out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kudos~

blogfast25 - 31-3-2015 at 17:29

Hi Zombie,

Quote:

I'm glad to see all are in agreement as to what is actually happening in the system, and why it works.

Going by what you wrote further down, I doubt we actually agree on ‘why it works’.

Quote:

The still I do have experience with is a dual column rig. I explained this here before. It is a concentric column, and perhaps the only practical one ever built.

I’m very interesting in that design but find it difficult to imagine it, based on your description. Any chance of a ‘back-of-an-envelope’ diagram to elucidate a little?

Quote:

The only key or trick to distilling is controlling the heat to minimize water vapor from forming. Yes some is always carried over in the EtOH due to the Azeotrope. It can be reduced depending on the amount of fuesil oils in the mash/wash, and careful heat graduation.
ALL stills work on graduation. The right amount of heat at the right places make the difference between a clunker still or an engineered still.
Pot stills can be engineered to work correctly.
Look at all the top Whiskey distilleries from Scotland.... They have caps, and Lyne arms that have been developed over centuries. They never applied math or any form of engineering but they can make azeotrope from a simple pot solely due to the design of the vapor path.

I’m not sure whether it’s due to the kind of language you use or what but there’s so much I disagree with there.

The Vapour Liquid Equilibrium (VLE) is established in… well, equilibrium conditions. No matter what you do, the vapour phase contains both EtOH AND water. This is true of any binary system, as long as the least volatile component has at least some volatility. This is true even at the slowest rate of distillation (pot enthalpy input, basically), within reason that rate doesn’t change the VLE. Slower distillation doesn’t somehow ‘hold back’ any water.

Water isn’t found in the distillate because of the azeotrope: distil mixtures of, say water and acetone (forms no azeotrope) and you’ll find water in the distillate, the amount depending largely on the reflux of your equipment (and the VLE itself, of course). A still that’s well insulated above the liquid-vapour level (thus providing little or no reflux) would provide only about one theoretical plate (without a column or such like).

Extremely fast distillations could cause some mechanical entrainment of wash and that would cause extra water to come over (with respect to the VLE).

Define better what you mean by ‘graduation’, in this context.

As regards “solely due to the design of the vapor path”, as long as that vapour path is in intimate contact with a counter-current liquid path, then yes: that’s the key to separation.

The idea that top Whiskey distilleries from Scotland “never applied math or any form of engineering” is a bit too risible to even refute! That’s just your ‘we don’t need them bookworms here’ worldview shining through again. You certainly seriously underestimate 18 – 19th century Scottish engineering capability, to put it mildly.

Back later tomorrow…

Magpie - 31-3-2015 at 18:31

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Anyway... I'm glad to be back posting. I spent the last week on a 28' Morgan sailboat, delivering it to a customer in the Keys.

Wow - the Morgan 28' was the first sailboat I ever chartered (bareboat). I took my bride for a 3 day cruise in the Abacos on my honeymoon. Remember: "It's better in the Bahamas!"

Zombie - 31-3-2015 at 18:37

Hi Mr. Blog,

I know I greatly over simplify things. I'm the kind of guy that needs meat to bite into, and if there are three dozen words to explain a simple thought I move on to easier feeding.

Since I moved to Fl. to relax, and do as I please I have gotten worse at short selling concepts, and I leave all the long words to the beholder to fill in the gaps. I apologize if it offends, and I do appreciate your indulgence in asking me to fill in some of those gaps.

Starting from the bottom up...
perhaps I did short sell the designers of the Scottish stills. Reality is there was a concept first, and the designs proved the concept. That leads to math. Math leads to improvements, and understanding why something works. At least that's the way I see it all.

If I cared to pay attention 30 years ago I could have given this whole thread a quick answer by providing the formulas that made a thumper work. So could any one that read it. Again the reality is we are all simple people that have learned different things. Some the same but that is the common thread of the forum. Common interest.
Take a fella that reads Gas spectrometer printouts all day... Bet he can't change a fuse in that Mercedes Benz. BUT he can lay out the total resistance of the entire wiring diagram on paper in two minutes.

That is all I meant by Scottish designers back in the day. Trial, and error led to the math that now predicts what a still will do.

Moving on to entrainment. That is exactly what I mean when I talk about reducing water vapor. There are many reasons and causes of entrainment, and it is the bain of all types of distillation from petrol cracking towers to simple "bumping" in a Lab setting.
On a simple Pot still the cap, and boiler shape is made to reduce entrainment, and provide a natural reflux that does allow heavier (% water) vapor to reflux. Technically it is not really reflux but a simple drop out or equalization within the boiler. That is where Gradient comes in. Temperature gradient is what I mean. There MUST be a specific temp range on every inch of a pot / cap / lyne arm / column, for it to work efficiently.
If the cap is the same temp as the boiler that heavy vapor will never fall, and the water will carry to the condenser.
I don't think that was engineered on the first real working still. It had to be learned.

That gets to my concentric column... The boiler is 36" tall. The stripping column (outer) is 36" tall on top.
The inner (rectifying) is 72" overall. 36" are inside the boiler, and the other 36" are inside the outer...

The inner re-boiler is insulated to reduce the operating temp at the base to 25* f below the boiler temp. The reason is the temp at the top of the outer column is always exactly 20*f below the boiler, and that vapor is now injected into the base of the inner column.
This allows whatever water (spent wash) is in the vapor to condense, and drop into the reboiler.
The column now uses the heat from the EtOH vapor to fire the inner column.
There are also "shotgun" condensers on top of Both columns to increase reflux. I can run at full power for days, and never extract a drop of vapor but the stages are packed in the columns by mole fractions and ready to be extracted.
Staying at a set temp gradient allows control of what fraction is where. Without a gradient all stills are hot pipes pumping out everything in them. I understand your point there.

I had to learn thermal mass transfers to get the right combo of materials to insulate the inner column to set a specific temp, and found that 1.5mm thick stainless tubing, and 2mm of silicone between that and the copper inner column would set the temp.. That I did develop thru math, and no trial, and error. The column did what I designed it to do only because I took the year to develop it.

Look around the net for working concentric columns... They don't exist. The very few that do are mufti million dollar rigs, and too finicky to be of any commercial use.
They never thought about it as a distiller. They over engineered the heat transfers (gradient), and missed the mark.

Here's a few of the early Cads on the dams, wiers, down comers, plates, and a few random sketches.

I do have a patent pending status, and hopefully within the year I will have the international patent.

My Hydrofiol design is next. Some of the early work on epoxy formulas will be here.

$_1.JPG Dual Resized.jpg Shotgun Insulater.jpg - 166kB

Untitled.jpg Boiler Base Inner Column.jpg - 128kB

Untitled.jpg Flow Dual Shotgun.jpg - 173kB

Zombie - 31-3-2015 at 18:51

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Anyway... I'm glad to be back posting. I spent the last week on a 28' Morgan sailboat, delivering it to a customer in the Keys.

Wow - the Morgan 28' was the first sailboat I ever chartered (bareboat). I took my bride for a 3 day cruise in the Abacos on my honeymoon. Remember: "It's better in the Bahamas!"

It's an amazingly fast little boat. We made it to Tamp from Carrabelle in two days. Then to Islamorada (Key) in another 3.5.
Straight sailing, and the wind to our starboard the whole way.

The hard part was walking upright for the first 10 or so hours once we landed. I had a hard lean to port for a few hours...

The fella that owns the boat (Jonny Debt) want's to sail it to Canada in August. I'll have to think hard on that one...

I'm just happy to be home. :cool:

Missed my dogs, and my Fireball Whiskey. :cool:

blogfast25 - 1-4-2015 at 06:16

Zombie:

OK, I broadly speaking agree with what you write there.

Thanks for the diagrams, it's clear now.

Big But(t)

... Looks rather complicated to fabricate. Expensive and possibly high maintenance. Quite sophisticated temperature controls on both the coil and shotgun condensers will be needed too. Any idea what temperature you'll be running the waters at?

I can see that it will be less tall (2 m (80") for 90 L (20 Gl) is short for 95 EtOH) than a simpler, equivalent 'one column' design and that's a great advantage. Are there other advantages that offset the higher construction cost?

At the start of distillation, will both boilers be filled with wash?

Any particular reasons why this is intended for fuel alcohol, not 'likker'?

[Edited on 1-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 1-4-2015 at 17:27

All those sketches were preliminary. They were mainly to place the components, and get a "feel" for the design.

You are correct on a few points... The construction of the Prototype was complicated. I had to make it all modular, and logical in order of construction. Once I sorted that it is actually quite simple to tear down, and replace/repair/modify, components.

I wont bore you with that process.

The cooling water temps are NOT monitored but they can be for automation. The current set up uses an evaporator from a commercial Air Condition unit mounted inside a home chest freezer, and a recirculating impeller pump. I use Pink non toxic anti freeze for home plumbing as the coolant, and separate ball valves for each reflux condenser.
Full bore it will pump 70 gph of coolant but in running conditions it runs closer to 1.5 liters per minute of coolant.
I could either monitor coolant temp or flow rate. Flow rate at 30*f seems more consistent than Temp monitoring in the long run. BUT I have not attempted to automate this yet.
The goal is to run under vacuum, and fire the boiler w/ 160^ solar heated water. (long term goal)

The dimensions are different in these drawings, as are the plate/packing sections.
In the final rig it is equal to 21 theoretical plates, and just 82" tall overall. The combined column length is 108" at an internal area equal to a 3.82" column.

The initial idea was to build an azeotrope Vodka column that would fit into most any home w/ 8 foot ceilings. This quickly led to a Solar powered fuel EtOH column that can run on solar heated water.
The advantage in a solar column is obvious. Combine the climate, and weather patterns of most likely areas of use... Semi tropical regions. Hurricanes... Reduced height towers rule here.
A six inch tower would need to be at least 18 feet tall on top of a boiler in most cases.
My design brings this down to 9 feet tall including a 200 gallon boiler.

Ten of these rigs can produce approx. 200 gallons of fuel in 5-6 hours, and use no fuel for heating the boilers. In fact the heat transfer in the solar heated water can be used to assist in creating the vacuum to run the rigs.

Once actual tooling is established the cost of construction / materials can be within 30% of a conventional EtOH fuel column, and the operating costs far out weigh this slight increase.

I have a friend in the Philippines that is doing the business prospective, and compiling the numbers. It appears to be a break even cost on the very first production run taking electric / oil / sillage fuel costs, and maintenance into account. We are attempting to scale up the numbers to fit real world operating/manufacturing/maintenance costs.

At the start of the run... Yes. Both boilers are pre charged. The inner re-boiler depends on a positive pressure created from that wash or "charge" on the jetted vapor injection pipe.
There is an engineered "jet" in the base of the injection pipe that allows an escape of spent wash at a controlled rate so no wash can back up into the vapor pipe once at operating temp. This eliminates issues such as "suck back" as seen here or bumping entrainment.
There are side vents on the vapor injector to allow passing of clean, stripped EtOH vapor just above this bottom jet. That vapor is passed directly into the first "random packing section for its first pass at rectification. Any further reflux is based on this clean vapor, and NOT on any water carried over from the stripping column. That water is collected in / monitored / drained from the re boiler as needed. Right now it is on a manual sight tube / drain valve, but it can easily be automated via a float control or graphite / stainless sensors.

Like I said... This started life as a home Vodka still, and once I saw where the design was leading, I had to offer it as an alternative fuel production source.
The advantages are many, and the idea fits many world markets.

With several dozen different Federal, and State, tax / business / alternative fuel incentives, loans, grants as well as a nearly year round feed stock growing season Florida is a natural choice for implementing these columns.

Same applies for MANY other markets around the world.

To make light of the whole concept... If we insist on burning fuels for power, you might as well be able to add an olive, and some ice to your fuel. It might just spark the next great idea.

I really do appreciate your interest. Same goes to all of you that have reached out. This was the toughest project to date I have ever tackled. More to come...

[Edited on 4-2-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 2-4-2015 at 07:56

Thanks a lot for the info.

Good luck with the patent.

Zombie - 2-4-2015 at 10:08

Thank you Mr. Blogfast.

As I'm sure you know, international patents cost a LOT of money, and there are no guarantees.
To me it is like a breath holding contest that never ends. It just begins again with every update.

ave369 - 8-7-2015 at 23:44

I am a practicing moonshiner, and I've used a simple form of thumper. It works. Without it, my foreshots come out 60% ethanol and my main batch 40-50%. With it, the foreshots come out 90% ethanol and the main batch 70%.

blogfast25 - 9-7-2015 at 10:28

Quote: Originally posted by ave369

I am a practicing moonshiner, and I've used a simple form of thumper. It works. Without it, my foreshots come out 60% ethanol and my main batch 40-50%. With it, the foreshots come out 90% ethanol and the main batch 70%.

It's been proved scientifically in this post.

More experiments are expected by another SM experimenter.

aga - 9-7-2015 at 13:04

Yeah. Where's the results Crowfjord ?

Fire up your boiler and get some thumping done !

Crowfjord - 9-7-2015 at 14:20

Sorry to keep you guys waiting. I think that I am finally rested enough after kicking the ass of a cell biology course to get going this weekend

blogfast25 - 9-7-2015 at 14:35

No rush. Look forward to your results though, Crowfjord.

Crowfjord - 16-8-2015 at 09:36

Having determined that the addition of a thumper does indeed add some efficiency to a simple distillation setup, it was decided that the next course of action would be to investigate the effect of the initial fill level of the thumper. Aga was kind enough to offer to send an alcohol refractometer to me, so I took on the task.

The experiments were conducted as follows:

Feedstock was cheap 80 proof vodka, diluted four times by volume. The refractometer reading was 10% (w/w). In each experiment, a 1000 mL round-bottom flask (pot) was connected via a copper tube to a 500 mL three-necked RBF (thumper), which in turn led to an aluminum foil-insulated distillation head and Liebig condenser. The third neck was plugged with a rubber septum. For each run, 500 mL of feedstock was placed in the pot and either 250, 125, or 0 mL were placed in the thumper. Ceramic insulation was placed between the hotplate and thumper (see photo).
Over the course of each distillation, 5 mL fractions of distillate were collected and their ethanol concentration measured. Since it was determined that the refractometer was most accurate nearer to the 0% (by weight) ethanol side of the scale, samples were diluted four times (4X) by weight before testing. An aliquot was taken from each fraction, and 0.50 g to 0.55 g was weighed into a tared vial, then distilled water was added until the total mass was four times that of the original. The reading was then taken after thoroughly mixing the dilution. Similarly, readings were also taken from the thumper liquid through each distillation. Thumper samples were also diluted either 4X or 2X before testing, depending on concentration.

Observations

In each run,about 50 to 120 mL of liquid would collect in the thumper before distillation began. Once distillation began, bubbles could be seen growing and releasing from the sides of the copper tube. Distillate would come over rather quickly at first (~2 drops/second), then was allowed to slow to ~0.5 to 1 drop/second. Temperature of the hotplate under the pot was manually adjusted upward over the run to maintain this distillation rate.

Results

The highest concentration of alcohol distilled from an initially empty thumper (see Figure 1), and a descending trend can be seen as the initial volume in the thumper is increased. Similarly, the thumper liquid declines in alcohol concentration as the distillation proceeds (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Ethanol concentrations of distillate collected in 5 mL fractions from thumper with varying initial fill level.

Figure 2. Approximate ethanol concentrations of liquid in thumper at the time of indicated fraction's collection.

I Will leave the discussion to be carried out among the community. This post may be subject to edits for clarity as suggestions are made.

Here is the photo of the setup, as well as the raw data in excel.

Attachment: Thumper distillation data.xlsx (38kB)
This file has been downloaded 371 times

[Edited on 16-8-2015 by Crowfjord]

blogfast25 - 16-8-2015 at 10:14

Nice experiment and write up, Crowfjord.

I'll probably have some more things to add to this later on but for now I'll comment that it's a nice confirmation that initially empty thumpers work best and provide the highest degree of EtOH enrichment.

Thanks for that work.

aga - 16-8-2015 at 10:35

Woohoo !

Nice one Crowfjord !

Very good work there.

How did you determine that the refractometer was more accurate at low w% ?

Is the scale logarithmic ?

aga - 16-8-2015 at 11:03

Scratch that - i just looked at mine again and it is logarithmic.

Crowfjord - 16-8-2015 at 11:08

I found when testing solutions of high, known alcohol concentrations that the reading was very off. For example, the undiluted vodka came in at 46% (w/w), where the hydrometer, which I know to be accurate, read 36 % ABV. Some known 95% ethanol also gave a reading of something like 65%. I also reasoned that since the refractometer was calibrated/zeroed with distilled water, it would be most accurate with solutions that were closest to 100% water.

Some tests showed that diluted samples gave readings that were satisfactory.

[Edited on 16-8-2015 by Crowfjord]

nitro-genes - 16-8-2015 at 13:35

Apart from making 95% nitric acid, distillation is also a nice way to get rid of undrinkable wines (plum wine for example is much better distilled IMO)

Regarding accurate alcohol percentage determination:
A 50 ml volumetric flask and reasonably accurate scale does the trick for me...

Temperature depended water/ethanol density tables can be found over here:
-->http://www.separationprocesses.com/CourseWare/Experiments/Property01.htm

[Edited on 16-8-2015 by nitro-genes]

Crowfjord - 16-8-2015 at 13:48

Thanks, nitro-genes. I used that density table in my previous thumper distillation experiments. It proved quite handy.

aga - 16-8-2015 at 14:52

Amazing.

I just went through the sign-up process on homedistiller.org to post a link to this thread so they could see the Scientific Proof of the effectiveness of a Thumper, following Crowfjord's work to complete the proof.

Result was 'Topic Disapproved' by a moderator.

Are they seriously saying that i can be Drunk on a Science/Chemistry forum, yet not be drunk on a Booze Distillation forum ?

Ah well. Their loss.

Edit:

Their Member's loss actually, as the Moderator will probably take a Sneaky Peek themselves.

Oh the Power ! The Power !

[Edited on 16-8-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 16-8-2015 at 15:33

aga:

Maybe they confused the term "proof" (as in 'conclusive evidence') with "proof" as in 'the measure of ethanol in an alcoholic'?

[Edited on 16-8-2015 by blogfast25]

gdflp - 16-8-2015 at 19:06

Don't worry aga, it seems the mods reposted it. Apparently they're all upset because you didn't introduce yourself.

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=5719...

Doesn't seem like some of the folks on that forum are terribly scientific though.

Quote:

I don't need a scientific paper to tell me what I can see with my own two eyes.

blogfast25 - 17-8-2015 at 06:16

While I appreciate aga's effort of posting at homedistiller.org, that 'forum' is mainly a chat room for the scientifically and grammatically challenged. Before we conducted the experiments I trawled that place literally for hours trying to find useful information on thumpers and found none. Hundreds of useless posts and endless patting each other on the back ('wel doen, xYZ!') but not the slightest proof of concept re. thumpers in sight. If anything, that forum made me more sceptical [of thumpers] than I already was (at the time)!

See also the reaction aga's information has received: 'we don't need no science here bro'. Cretins will be cretins.

EDIT: the link from HD to SM (this thread) doesn't seem to work.

[Edited on 17-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 17-8-2015 at 06:52

Never mind.

They seem to be enjoying themselves, which is the main thing.

blogfast25 - 17-8-2015 at 07:01

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Never mind.

They seem to be enjoying themselves, which is the main thing.

Wouldn't that enjoyment be enhanced by a modicum of intellectual rigour and fact-checking?

Wait! Probably not, come to think of it. Give people a choice between meaningless pap or something informative that requires switching on one's grey matter and most will go for the pap.

[Edited on 17-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 17-8-2015 at 12:18

To be fair, i fit right in over on that forum !

I'll get to be Forum T-Totaller soon with any luck.

(dont get your hopes up - i can multi-forum in any state).

Loptr - 17-8-2015 at 12:28

aga, you ruffled some feathers over there. lol

Looks like they are calling you a troll now...

Our minds produce such an effective internal reality that its blends the borders between our senses and pre-conceived notions, even to the point where we sometimes can't distinguish between the two.

[Edited on 17-8-2015 by Loptr]

aga - 17-8-2015 at 12:48

Thread locked. DOH !

I suppose SM is a place for facts, HD a place for drunken beliefs.

blogfast25 - 17-8-2015 at 12:49

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

aga, you ruffled some feathers over there. lol

A lot of these members don't like science one little bit. Science is OK when it makes useful 'stuff' but anything else is a bit suspect: 'intellectual' and 'elitist', you know?

The idea that moonshining (thumpers, slobber boxes or whatnot included) can be looked at scientifically isn't something they cherish. That the most successful distilling houses apply the scientific method to maximum effect doesn't really occur to most of them either.

[Edited on 17-8-2015 by blogfast25]

gdflp - 17-8-2015 at 12:58

I was browsing through their forums and found a quite funny thread. Apparently using a glass thumper and distillation vessel is idiotic because glass can break. They all use copper or steel instead. I guess none of them have ever tried to distill nitric acid.

[Edited on 8-17-2015 by gdflp]

blogfast25 - 17-8-2015 at 13:20

Quote: Originally posted by gdflp

I was browsing through their forums and found a quite funny thread. Apparently using a glass thumper and distillation vessel is idiotic because glass can break. They all use copper or steel instead. I guess none of them have ever tried to distill nitric acid.

[Edited on 8-17-2015 by gdflp]

They tend to prefer copper because they're distilling drinking alcohol. Copper eliminates sulphides, among other things. And it's a good material for DIY stills: abundant, malleable and easy to solder/braze.

Borosilicate glass is obviously fine too but some were using jam jars for their thumpers: I would try and discourage that too.

gdflp - 17-8-2015 at 13:24

Indeed. Perhaps I've become spoiled, when I think of glass and distillation, I think of Pyrex and quickfit glassware instead of jars and soda glass tubing.

aga - 17-8-2015 at 13:31

They seem an innocuous and pleasant bunch.

No appetite for anything New though.

Amazing they adopt the term 'azeo' seeing as the phase diagram for ethanol/water will almost certainly not have been produced by careful shaking of a bottle of sippin' whisky and precision dribbling (to adjust the water content).

Funny really. Having a brief taste of that forum, i felt more like blogfast25 must do here when faced with my comments.

I definiately need to eat up some of those Pearls and stop behaving like a swine.

blogfast25 - 17-8-2015 at 14:03

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Funny really. Having a brief taste of that forum, i felt more like blogfast25 must do here when faced with my comments.

I definiately need to eat up some of those Pearls and stop behaving like a swine.

... Some of your comments, aga. But funnily enough that thought crossed my mind when I read the exchange too.

Some at HD will appreciate SM's approach to EtOH distillation and thumpers more than others and you can't please everyone (blimey, look at me and my bag of platitudes!

)

A lot of people tend to resist things that are outside of their comfort zone, I guess.

Oooopsie: I see they've now actually locked the thread. Reason? It's a 'train wreck' apparently. Pffftt... Maybe it's better that way [locked] anyroads.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by blogfast25]

Loptr - 18-8-2015 at 06:21

I think they are mostly pushing back because they see distilling as theirs that they are continuing from an ages old craft. They probably think "oh, here comes science again trying to act like it knows everything. well, we have been doing it the longest, so don't waltz in here and try and be a know it all"...

All the while their entire craft is the result of individual experimentation that is not reproducible for the most part, simply because they follow no systematic method, so you have guys that are doing it very well, while others I imagine are barely scraping by. Distillation is a problem that was solved quite a while ago, so I would think this part of the process would be a non-issue, and you wouldn't still have such "advancements" in "thumpers" as I see on that forum. It just means that you are working with a broken design, and are slowly improving it.

I understand why they respond in this manner, however, their method of perpetuating their knowledge of the process breaks down, and each individual has to essentially relearn it.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by Loptr]

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 06:39

@Loptr: nothing much I can disagree with there.

The funny/’tragic’ thing is that had aga waded in there with his data in hand but ‘cloaking’ his use of language to ‘fit’ closer to theirs, he would probably have met with near-unanimous approval. But by the use of ‘sciency’ language he became the ‘other’ right from the start.

I experienced something very similar on a home brewing (fermentation, NOT distillation) forum when cautiously trying to introduce a few basic ways of measuring things more accurately and more systematically. By and large the reaction was ‘we don’t do it like that over here!’, with a subtext of ‘p*ss off!’.

+++++++++++

Going back on topic, I’d still be very interested in a more quantitative model that would predict why thumpers work and remain a little stumped as to why this kind of ‘booster’ isn’t deployed in other distilling situations.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 18-8-2015 at 07:47

Hey ! i was being Subtle !

The fact is that the Thumper did 'work' and the underlying principles should be applicable elsewhere (as you just said).

A more intersting claim was that "a thumper filled with an azeotropic mixture would produce better than azeotropic distillate".

(The wording was different)

Now, before anyone shouts 'Impossible !' it think it worth a try, as it will be easy to do anyway, and nobody believed the original thumper idea either.

Edit:

Seeing as we're now trying to measure the Water not the ethanol, how does one do that ?

I have a Dean-Stark trap if that is of any use in this situation.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 08:17

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Hey ! i was being Subtle !

[snip]

A more intersting claim was that "a thumper filled with an azeotropic mixture would produce better than azeotropic distillate".

(The wording was different)

Now, before anyone shouts 'Impossible !' it think it worth a try, as it will be easy to do anyway, and nobody believed the original thumper idea either.

Edit:

Seeing as we're now trying to measure the Water not the ethanol, how does one do that ?

My point wasn't about subtlety at all. By phrasing your claim in scientific language (rightly so, no criticism intended from my part) and not in their more intuitive 'moonshiner's jargon' you identify yourself as an 'outsider'. They didn't like that, see basically Loptr's point.

Quote:

Now, before anyone shouts 'Impossible !' it think it worth a try, as it will be easy to do anyway, and nobody believed the original thumper idea either.

... is a very old type of fallacy. Here's a similar one, to illustrate:

"They said the motor car wasn't going to work either, ergo water-driven hyper drives for space ships are probably possible too.'

It's a bit, shall we say, 'franklynesque'?

I'm not going to argue the point any further but will merely suggest you try and understand better what an azeotrope really is, physically speaking.

Re. measuring small amounts of water in a solvent, it's surprisingly difficult. Karl Fischer titration is the only thing that springs to mind and that's not for beginners. Once you're 'above' the azeotrope things like gas chromatography can also be used.

++++++++

As regards calling me 'a bit highbrow', all I can say is: "Oy! Outside!" (The proverbial 'Dave' says "Leave it Bloggers. E's not wurffit!)

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 18-8-2015 at 11:34

So (having effectively removed Dave with cholorform) Put 'em Up, and suggest a way to accurately measure between 95% and 100% ethanol.

Dilution ?

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 11:44

However you do it, you've got a measurement error problem. Between 95 and 100 % a mere 2 % measuring error would bugger everything up. So if you're gonna dilute you better do it real accurately.

I don't think this is realistically doable w/o Primary Standards (certified 100 % EtOH).

Dan P. - 18-8-2015 at 11:54

I'm sorry that it appears that I'm the first HomeDistiller to have joined the discussion on this side of the fence.
To clarify for you boffins (soi disant), the reasons for the reaction to aga's posts were various, and I can't speak for all the members there, but I suggest that, in no particular order, the top three were;

Reason 1; aga's tone was obnoxious, imperious, rude, and in combination with the irrelevance of what he actually had to say, ridiculous.

Reason 2; aga wanted us to know that thumpers work, and that this is now true because science says so.
Well, it was true before, and has been true for a long time. The science behind it is not complicated, even home distillers get it. Old news.

Reason 3; The empty thumper necessarily causes higher abv output thing. There was some kind of nonsense about a thumper filled with azeotrope alcohol that got some people excited. I'm not sure what that is about, or why a home distiller would fill a thumper with azeotrope?? Personally, I found the empty thumper claim stupid because it claimed something in the name of science, claimed it as a science fact, that is simply not necessarily true in all or most or even many cases.
The reason for that is that thumpers, as we know them at Home Distiller, are something used for the distillation of potable alcohol. It is largely understood and agreed that they will be of a certain size relative to the size of the boiler, but after that, what you put in either boiler or thumper is your own choice. It makes things complicated. I actually offered aga the example of a boiler filed with 1% abv wash, and an empty thumper vs. a boiler filled with the same wash, but a thumper filled with 95% alcohol. The latter obviously gives the higher abv output, the empty thumper obviously giving a much lower output.

So there you go. Now, on a slightly different note, I will add that there are not many home distillers who actually use thumpers. Why? Because they are just a bit crap. They give a marginal increase in ABV, with a cost to the quality of the distillate. They are iconic because they were much used during the "golden era" of moonshining, when the boiler would be filled with wash, the thumper filled with feints, wash, singlings or a compination thereof, with the intention that spirit of acceptable abv (but of very questionable quality) could be produced in just one run, time and discretion being at a premium. Pot stillers wishing to make quality spirit use simple double pot distillation. The output abv is quite acceptable for a potable spirit, and the "smearing" of fractions that a thumper causes makes their use undesirable.
As for making high abv distillates, I think you will find a lot of very competent distillers at Home Distiller and various other home distilling sites who use quite sophisticated equipment to produce azeotrope alcohol on a regular basis. Try Modern Distiller or Artisan Distiller forums for a slightly more tech-minded demographic.
Regards,
Dan P.

aga - 18-8-2015 at 12:03

Welcome Dan P.

I really wish we had had you here when we started this thread.

What you know would have saved a lot of time and effort.

Edit:

Sorry if i appeared obnoxius and rude : it was not intended.

I was excited that Crowfjord had completed the Science, proving that Thumpers work (and to what degree).

I tend to drink too much, hence the label 'Forum Drunkard', which often makes my comments not quite what was expected.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

Dan P. - 18-8-2015 at 12:09

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Welcome Dan P.

I really wish we had had you here when we started this thread.

What you know would have saved a lot of time and effort.

Well, never mind, I'm sure you had fun, even if it didn't necessarily get you anywhere!

aga - 18-8-2015 at 12:19

Your post here just shed a TON of light on the whole Thumper thing.

The reasons Why and the History of their use are the most impressive (to me).

Thank you loads for posting all of that.

It is very very useful information.

The Fact remains that we Proved that Thumpers work in a Scientific way, which means that Anybody or their Auntie can pick up that information and Test it.

Just 'i know it works' is not useful to the next guy who does not know exactly how to do it.

I suppose it would be the same if an HD menber posted a public statement showing his exact Pot and Thumper dimentions, along with the pipe length and diameters, as well as the starting mash w%, temeratures and measured ABV output over 1 minutes intervals.

Maybe that happened. If it did, nobody here could find it.

Dan P. - 18-8-2015 at 12:20

Honestly, any half-wit on HD could have told you that thumpers work, and why. It's logical that they should work. Easily explainable. There are quite a few and quite lengthy threads about thumpers. Unfortunately they are mostly drivel.

Did you get banned?

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by Dan P.]

aga - 18-8-2015 at 12:29

Somebody telling me that "Aliens Exist" is not enough for me to believe it.

I want Proof (in more ways than one)

Same with "Mah Thumpah gives me 100 w% Ethanol"
Same with "Mix HNO3 and Water and you get Gold"

The Science thing is determining *if* it is true,

If it is, you can use it, and Build on it.

No, i have not been banned from HD yet, but the night is still young, and i posted a new thread.

aga - 18-8-2015 at 12:31

Quote: Originally posted by Dan P.

Honestly, any half-wit on HD could have told you that thumpers work, and why. It's logical that they should work. Easily explainable.

Please Explain.

We here could not work out how.

Edit :

**
Before any smart ass jumps in and says Aha ! Thermodynamics prohibits it !
Just give Dan P a time to explain it ok ?
**

We were all wrong about the 'Thumpers cannot work at all ' thing remember ?

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 12:39

@Dan P.:

I have only one thing to tell you and one to ask you.

Quote: Originally posted by Dan P.

Reason 1; aga's tone was obnoxious, imperious, rude, and in combination with the irrelevance of what he actually had to say, ridiculous.

That bit is simply not true at all.

And here's my request. Now that the thread he had started has been locked, will you have the courtesy, since as you've now had your say on your side of the story here (your right to reply, so to speak), to leave?

It's obvious that your world and ours are worlds apart, and I see no reason for any 'forum wars'.

Deal?

Best of luck with all your endeavours at homedistiller.org,

aga - 18-8-2015 at 12:41

Seems i did get banned a few 10s of minutes ago.

Heigh ho.

SM should learn from this and Ban idiots like me who try to share information.

Edit:

I was about to change my password, yet decided to leave it as-is. Same pw on HD.

If you see some seriously crazy stuff from my account, you'll er, ..
Hang on. How would anyone know it wasn't me ?

Security thru insanity. There has to be a future in this.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 12:48

Where was the new thread?

Trust me, an exchange with HD will not lead anywhere useful. If you want to know what they know about thumpers, search for it there. There are plenty threads on that, I linked to a couple of them higher up in this thread.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by blogfast25]

Dan P. - 18-8-2015 at 12:48

It's not very hard to get banned from HD, so you may find your efforts quite fruitful, in some ways.

How thumpers are supposed to work;

Pot still, charged with wash at 10%
gives out a distillate at maybe 30% (collectively)?
That distillate is condensed in the thumper, which has been charged with the "feints" of your last run, at perhaps 40% or more.
Now, theoretically, as the thumper warms up, the condensed input from the boiler and the thumper charge will begin to boil off the different fractions, which are then condensed and collected, as per the spirit run on a pot still. In practice, it is much more complicated and the fractions get smeared and a general horror show ensues, as far as potable product is concerned.
However, the desired effect is indeed acheived, that being a collective output ABV of perhaps 55-60% in one run, as opposed to two runs in a simple pot stil (no thumper) giving maybe 70%.
These numbers are made more vague because how they are "cut" i.e. whether certain fractions are kept as product or discarded/recycled as feints, is very much a personal preference.

Now, is that so outlandish sounding that you wouldn't accept it?

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 12:52

Quote: Originally posted by Dan P.

It's not very hard to get banned from HD, so you may find your efforts quite fruitful, in some ways.

If every time someone comes along and says something you don't care about, then suspect he's a 'troll', then it's no surprise getting banned is easy.

aga - 18-8-2015 at 12:53

That is excellent information Dan P.

It'll take a few minutes to read it againand work out what it means.

Thanks for sharing the information - your input on this project is very very helpful.

Edit :

Told you he gets all HighBrow at Times ...

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

aga - 18-8-2015 at 13:10

OK. Read it a few times now.

Your 'explanation' of How they work is more of a Guideline of how to make a Thumper work.

This may well help a Distiller yet does not offer any explanation of How a Thumper works.

Granted : a Thumper does 'work' in that it raises the w% (aka ABV) of the distillate.

The How is the most interesting bit, as the Process by which it works might be useful elsewhere, maybe many elsewheres.

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 13:17

Quote: Originally posted by aga

OK. Read it a few times now.

Your 'explanation' of How they work is more of a Guideline of how to make a Thumper work.

This may well help a Distiller yet does not offer any explanation of How a Thumper works.

Granted : a Thumper does 'work' in that it raises the w% (aka ABV) of the distillate.

The How is the most interesting bit, as the Process by which it works might be useful elsewhere, maybe many elsewheres.

It's more a description than anything else. You can find very similar descriptions on this thread by 'Zombie', not to mention endless variations of it on thumper related HD threads.

A mole-heap is being turned into a mountain here: so we wanted to figure something out in a controlled experiment, with actual numbers, so WHAT? That's mortal sin for a 'traditionalist', apparently...

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 18-8-2015 at 13:25

Careful bloggers. We'n got a heap of likker here and it burns real good.

I for one would like to have the views of an Actual likker distiller here instead of Zombie, who is/was an aretefact IMHO (an invented character).

After all, we got here by You stumbling across Thumpers on HD.

Perhaps there are other useful thing to Learn from Actual likker distilers.

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

Dan P. - 18-8-2015 at 13:34

The "how" is simple, your distillate is getting immediately redistilled. Combine it with a thumper charge that is already a relatively high abv, and the output will be higher still.

I know your interest is more scientific than that, but as far as "how" goes, I think that is fairly straightforward.

And please don't be frightened of some imaginary "forum war". It isn't going to happen. I am the only person who has bothered coming on here, and as it happens, though they can be a bunch of old women sometimes, the HD crowd is a pretty civil one.

Speaking of old women, blogfast, I will respect your "Please leave at once. We are from different worlds, you and I" etc. etc. Please believe me, this thread is the only thing remotely of interest to me on this forum (it was linked by aga from HD), and even then you seem yourselves to be coming to the embarrasing conclusion that you have got the wrong end of the stick!
Thumpers and their efficacy are utterly straightforward, child's play, and it only took you 28 pages to work it out.
"Pleeease leeeeave!!"

over and out.

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 13:36

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Perhaps there are other useful thing to Learn from Actual likker distilers.

Sure. Yet all I wanted to know is how these things work from a thermodynamical point of view.

Zombie is here, read through the thread again, he elaborated at great length on nearly all aspects of thumpers. For real 'likker aspects' (taste etc) you'd be better off at HD. Our thing was about EtOH enrichment.

aga - 18-8-2015 at 13:45

Out is not an option until a Moderator makes it so.

Your views, however Wrong i/we currently see them are of great value.

I appreciate you sharing them : it really help us Understand what the hell goes on in a Thumper.

The Child's Play you're talking about is Just Making It Work, and has no relation to HOW IT WORKS. Neither You, Us or the Child KNOWS how it works.

Therefore none of us can apply that knowledge to say Cancer Vaccine development, or anything else.

It just gets used in Booze production.

If this thread is all that interests you, and not "How To Test the Impurities in Your Water", then i guess i got it all wrong when i tried to share information with HD.

Pages: 1 .. 5 6 7 8