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

Moonshiners' 'Thumpers': Myth or Reality?

Pages: 1 .. 6 7 8

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 13:46

[...] 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!!"

No, Dan. We wanted experimental confirmation of that. Some numbers. Controlled conditions. Simple really. Keep turning what we did into something it wasn't, if that suits you.

Of the 28 pages probably less than 5 are worth reading but that's how these forums work, with everyone and their 'two cents' wanting to contribute. It's no different over at HD, as I'm sure you're aware.

Thanks for your side of things.

aga - 18-8-2015 at 13:55

Shame really.

He was the first Real distiller in here.

Ah well.

Some people prefer Magic over Science (quite a lot of people actually, and not just in Africa).

blogfast25 - 18-8-2015 at 14:04

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Shame really.

He was the first Real distiller in here.

Ah well.

Some people prefer Magic over Science (quite a lot of people actually, and not just in Africa).

I'd say the Only Real one.

I'll try and contact him tomorrow. We emailed a bit about politics. It's strange he's been AWOL for about 2 months now, if not longer.

aga - 18-8-2015 at 14:12

Boats and identity crises and such.

Note to SM mods:

"troll be gone!and tater waves his magic thumper over post and troll poster is gone."

Excellent work by HD Moderator Tater.

This also works.

18 users online of which 4 are just spiders.

Lowest i saw was just me and the Baidur spider (cos of timezones)

[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]

aga - 18-8-2015 at 14:26

@bloggers : i was referring to Dan P as the first Real Distiller.

aga - 22-8-2015 at 13:59

I was contacted today by a HD member who said this :-

Quote:

my theory on thumpers is.

First we have to know this.
The boiling point of water is 212 and the boiling point of alcohol is 173.
Wash will not boil at 212 or 173. It will boil at some point/temperature in between. Changing as the alcohols with the lower boiling point evaporates. Here’s a graph http://homedistiller.org/forum/download/file.php?id=5243&... to illustrate the theory.
Now a chart of the boiling points of alcohols as there will be more than just our favourite ethanol in there. They will be present in the wash depending on yeast health and many other factors. http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a8f0de534db4e6d3f7a2c06... (rather irrelevant but heh)

A 10% abv charge in a boiler that out puts an average of 50% vapour. [lets say this boils at 192.5]
Remembering that the first out put will be far higher...

We have a 50% abv charged thumper.
As the higher abv vapour comes in to the thumper its going to condense and mix increasing the abv in the thumper.

Let’s say now for arguments sake that thumper is containing a hypothetical 75% in the thumper at this point although it will drop over the course of the run/experiment.

This 75% abv charge will have a lower boiling point in theory than the 50% abv. (lets say this boils at182.75)

As this heats up due to the steam injection from the boiler the boiling point is going to be closer to that of alcohol the 173 than the water 212. Vaporising more alcohol than water thus you will see a higher abv out put than if you had only used the boiler.

This is just one man's interpretation of what’s going on But to me it hard to fault.

Personally i thank and salute the HD member for offering the information, despite the wealth of ill-feeling caused by my lack of sensitivity when i posted on their forum.

This part is Vital i feel :-

Quote:

as there will be more than just our favourite ethanol in there

The phase diagram for ethanol/water dictates what the max ethanol content will be based on there being just ethanol and water in the mix.

Adding in a third, fourth, fifth etc component may well shift the equlibrium to a point where you can actually reach a higher (than water/ethanol azeotropic) concentration in the distillate.

Given that a Thumper has been proven to increase the ABV in distillation, it might be true that given the right Mix, it can also be used to break azeotropes.

If that proves to be true as well (Zombie already claimed as much) then the mechanisms behind it could be of great use in other applications.

blogfast25 - 22-8-2015 at 14:23

aga:

Three simple points.

1. The member's 'theory' is no different from most other 'theories' that have been presented above in the thread. It's quite easy to drill holes in it and it certainly doesn't provide a full quantitative description of what goes on. I've tried to model this theoretically myself and failed.

2. The 'wealth of ill-feeling' didn't come from your 'lack of sensitivity'. What do you have to do there anyway to be accepted, grovel? Pray to the yeast G-ds?

No, those who didn't like your post were of the 'we don't need you here to tell us anything about thumpers, cowboy!' variety.

3. Your point about other components and EtOH azeotrope breaking may sound 'sciency' but it's hardly science as such. Speculation, no more.

Zombie also attributed his alleged azeotrope breaking only to the power of his design, and nothing else.

[Edited on 22-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 22-8-2015 at 14:39

Facts :-

#1 Claims made saying Thumpers increase ABV in distillation.
#1 Proven to be True.

#2 Claim made that the Ethanol/water Azeotrope can be broken.
#2 Untested.

The Thumper arrangement per se is possibly irrelevant.

Breaking an azeotrope using traces of some organics sounds a bit like a DES in reverse.

One way to find out ...

Edit:

What do we have to do to test it ?

Bash the maths like crazy same as we did for the basic Thumper assertion, or just give it a go and see what happens, take some measurements then get all mathsy afterwards ?

Oh ! There were no maths before the original experiments were done.

The charts n graphs came after ...

[Edited on 22-8-2015 by aga]

blogfast25 - 22-8-2015 at 14:56

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Breaking an azeotrope using traces of some organics sounds a bit like a DES in reverse.

Breaking azeotropes with a third component is well known practice in OC. I hope I don't have to point out the obvious drawback of this method?

Additional difficulty in future experimentation with the EtOH/water azeotrope (already discussed): accuracy of measurement. At 95.63 w% EtOH, you need a much better measuring method than your refractometer. Smallish measuring errors could send you off on a wild goose chase, possibly w/o even realising it!

[Edited on 22-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 22-8-2015 at 15:07

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

I hope I don't have to point out the obvious drawback of this method?

Ah.

'shiners actually Want those extra components in the distillate for taste etc.

DOH !

Edit:

But then again ...

If you could modify the azeotrope with a third component that was easily removed post-distillation ...

[Edited on 22-8-2015 by aga]

Texium - 22-8-2015 at 15:29

I've been spending some time catching up on this thread, and while I find it quite interesting, particularly as I'm planning on doing some fractional distillations of various alcohols at some point, I don't see any reason for this enmity between SM and HD.

Clearly, both forums have their pride, and a certain level of groupthink has developed on either side which has led to members on both forums becoming offended by the customs and mannerisms of the other that are taken for granted. We're supposed to be an open and welcoming community here to anyone who wants to actually contribute to the discussion. I see no reason for Dan P. to be chased off. We are not some exclusive group of elitist scientists and god forbid this place ever becomes that. He has contributed decent information to this thread based on his first-hand experience. Even if it does not directly use the scientific method, it shouldn't be immediately discounted. I think it was premature for aga to go to HD and immediately proclaim that the small amount of scientific data that has been gathered here is set-in-stone fact. The only data we have right now is Crowfjord's experiment. Since when was doing a single experiment and making a conclusion based solely on its results considered to be proper use of the scientific method? Plenty more repetitions and variations of the experiment are needed before any conclusions are drawn. It may seem tedious, but that's the way it works. Put your money where your mouth is and start really experimenting, blogfast. (Don't worry, I will too, I'm no hypocrite!)

I think if we can bury the hatchet, we may be able to find some common ground. We need to do some real science rather than bickering about what seems plausible or not and who knows better, and we'll all be able to learn something from this.

blogfast25 - 22-8-2015 at 15:35

Quote: Originally posted by aga

If you could modify the azeotrope with a third component that was easily removed post-distillation ...

[Edited on 22-8-2015 by aga]

There IS a second component of the aeotrope that can be easily removed and it's called... water! Something like CaO will remove the remaining 5 w% of water [in the azeotrope] quite easily. A single stage follow-up distillation will then yield the pure EtOH. This is, among other drying methods, how it's done for 100 % bio-ethanol (although for most uses like fuel the 5 % water can be left there)

blogfast25 - 22-8-2015 at 15:45

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

I see no reason for Dan P. to be chased off. We are not some exclusive group of elitist scientists and god forbid this place ever becomes that.

The only data we have right now is Crowfjord's experiment. Since when was doing a single experiment and making a conclusion based solely on its results considered to be proper use of the scientific method? Plenty more repetitions and variations of the experiment are needed before any conclusions are drawn. It may seem tedious, but that's the way it works.

Put your money where your mouth is and start really experimenting, blogfast.

Firstly, Dan P. was advised that fruitful discussion here was unlikely because of the 'incident'. Dan P. hasn't been banned here. But aga was over there. Did you actually read aga's thread [at HD] and the reaction it got?

Secondly, it was aga and me who conducted the first meaningful thumper experiment here. Much to his credit aga did the heavy lifting because I was ill at the time (still am not a 100 %). Crowfjord's experiment confirmed our results. So it's not a single run but at least two. With such meaningful differences in EtOH enrichment (thumper v. no thumper) as we (aga/me and Crowfjord) obtained, no one would seriously claim they weren't significant.

Sure, more experimentation would be most welcome, yours or anyone's. Just make sure it doesn't meet with Dan P.'s 'pffft, we already know all that!'

[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]

Texium - 22-8-2015 at 16:53

Yes, I read aga's thread, and while the way that he was received there surely wasn't acceptable, he did come across as a little bit presumptuous, and it certainly doesn't justify reacting the same way to one of their people coming over here.
I went over most of this thread, but somehow I missed aga's experiment. I apologize for that. Despite that, I still don't think that two experiments is enough to claim that a conclusion is a scientific fact.

[Edited on 8-23-2015 by zts16]

blogfast25 - 22-8-2015 at 17:14

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

Yes, I read aga's thread, and while the way that he was received there surely wasn't acceptable, he did come across as a little bit presumptuous, and it certainly doesn't justify reacting the same way to one of their people coming over here.
I went over most of this thread, but somehow I missed aga's experiment. I apologize for that. Despite that, I still don't think that two experiments is enough to claim that a conclusion is a scientific fact.

[Edited on 8-23-2015 by zts16]

Well then: did we react the same way to one of their people coming over here? I don't think so at all. I maintain though that even if there was some dialogue between 'them' and 'us' it would yield little: the approaches, methods and objectives are too different.

Scientific fact? Depends a bit on how you define that. We're making quite modest and specific claims: that starting with empty thumpers leads to distillates of significantly higher EtOH contents, compared to identical set ups with no thumpers at all.

We're not claiming to have developed a predictive quantitative model, quite the opposite. In my opinion, any future experiments should be aimed at a better understanding of what precisely is happening. Measuring EtOH content of the thumper liquid, just prior to when distillate starts coming over, would be an interesting metric that could throw some light on the how and why of the observed extra EtOH enrichment.

[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]

Crowfjord - 22-8-2015 at 17:57

Here is some more information from my last experiments with thumper distillation that I didn't include in the initial write-up:

Once distillation began (liquid flowing from condenser), the thumper liquid appeared to be boiling from the heat of the copper tube which descended to the bottom of the thumper, in addition to the injected vapor. In trials with "wash" preloaded into the thumper, the vapor bubbles would at first shrink and disappear as they assumably condensed/dissolved in the cooler liquid. As liquid condensed and the thumper grew hotter, the injected vapor bubbles became larger and longer lived until the thumper was hot enough for distillation to take place. At this point the bubbles just travelled from the end of the tube to the surface of the liquid, without visibly diminishing in size.

In measuring the ethanol concentration in the thumper, the first sample was taken just as distillation began. In the last run, with the thumper starting with 250 mL of "wash," I also took a measurement roughly halfway between turning on the heat and when distillation began. The concentration was 16 % ethanol (w/w) and about 120 mL had collected in the thumper. Samples aside from the first of each run were taken when roughly 2.5 mL of distillate had been collected of the 5 mL fraction.

[Edited on 23-8-2015 by Crowfjord]

Texium - 22-8-2015 at 21:03

blogfast, you didn't have any right to ask Dan to leave. If they could see that we aren't the bunch of condescending elitist dicks that you're making us look like, we should be able to converse civilly. I find this to be an interesting opportunity for some inter-forum collaboration if some of them are open to it. Even though it wasn't right of them to treat aga the way they did, the way that you keep talking down about them, calling them cretins, etc, even before the incident with aga, is unsolicited.

And I said scientific fact because that is the language that aga was using in the thread on HD. To me that appeared to be rather presumptuous, since he could have just as easily linked to this thread and explained a bit of the actual research, rather than trying to force it down their throats and expecting them to accept it. That isn't how science works.

aga - 22-8-2015 at 23:38

To be fair, there were rather a lot more than 2 experiments.

The data derived from a whole series of experiments are behind blogfast25s' graph.

4 experiments were done before even starting to accurately measure the EtOH concentrations and it took several more experiments to even make the Thumper work at all.

My attitude upset them, and i appologised.

Since then some posts in that thread were removed/edited, effectively re-writing history to better suit whoever edited them.

blogfast25 - 23-8-2015 at 05:24

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

blogfast, you didn't have any right to ask Dan to leave.

Says who? Of course I have that right. I didn't call for banning, I merely explained that any attempted 'dialogue' would be a conversation between the deaf. That's my opinion and I stand by it, also going by the small sample of 'interaction' we did get.

He's not banned. If he wants to put in another two cents here, he can and no one can stop him.

Quote: Originally posted by zts16

To me that appeared to be rather presumptuous, since he could have just as easily linked to this thread and explained a bit of the actual research, rather than trying to force it down their throats and expecting them to accept it. That isn't how science works.

Yawn. Science doesn't rely on sugar coating, politesse or civility either. The truth is what it is, no matter how it's presented. Had over at HD some had been less judgmental re. aga's 'attitude' and maybe looked at the data itself, they might have liked what they saw. Instead they shot the messenger.

[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 23-8-2015 at 06:10

Quote: Originally posted by Crowfjord

In measuring the ethanol concentration in the thumper, the first sample was taken just as distillation began. In the last run, with the thumper starting with 250 mL of "wash," I also took a measurement roughly halfway between turning on the heat and when distillation began. The concentration was 16 % ethanol (w/w) and about 120 mL had collected in the thumper. Samples aside from the first of each run were taken when roughly 2.5 mL of distillate had been collected of the 5 mL fraction.

Strange. From the VLE diagram I deduced that an EtOH 10 w% in the boiler the fraction that comes over should be about 40 w%.

In aga/mine experiment, without thumper he was getting 60 - 50 w% EtOH. As both set ups were identical that would also have been the composition entering (and condensing in) the thumper. It gets slowly diluted as EtOH w& tails off slowly:

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=61566&...

[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 23-8-2015 at 08:16

Another question that bugs me about the thermodynamics of thumpers is the following.

When the thumper is starting to yield distillate, it's temperature must be close to the BP of the liquid in it. Now we have the following heat balance:

Heatin = Heatout + Heatloss.

Heatin is of course the enthalpy carried by the vapours coming out of the 'pot' and into the thumper.

Heatout is the enthalpy carried by the vapours coming out of the thumper and into the distillate collector.

Heatloss is due to the thumper not being insulated. Being at higher temperatures than its surroundings, it loses heat. I wonder how and how much this would affect distillate EtOH w%. Would insulating a thumper help or hinder?

[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]

Crowfjord - 23-8-2015 at 09:45

Although I attempted to thermally isolate the thumper from the hot plate with ceramic insulation, some heat still made it through. I think that in my case, at least, heat from the hot plate may have compensated for or possibly even overcame any heat loss from the thumper.

aga - 23-8-2015 at 10:44

Stuff at a Higher Pressure boils at a Higher Temperature right ?

Once the thumper starts to fill (the input pipe gets covered) the pressure in the boiling pot should increase ever so slightly = higher temperature vapours leaving it and entering the thumper.

More liquid in the thumper and/or it's Height above the boiling pot should influence that extra pressure/higher temperature vapour.

Can anyone with a brain work out the pressure difference per metre starting at sea level, and the change in the boiling point of water that pressure difference would cause ?

blogfast25 - 23-8-2015 at 14:27

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Stuff at a Higher Pressure boils at a Higher Temperature right ?

Hydrostatic pressure at depth h in a liquid is given by:

p = p0 + dgh

With p0 atmospheric pressure and d the density of the liquid. For say 10 cm (0.1 m) depth in water:

p = 101,325 + 1000.0 x 9.8 x 0.1= 102,305 Pa.

That's barely 1 % higher than atmospheric pressure. The effect of such small pressure increases on BP is in the order of magnitude of about 1 celsius.

[Edited on 24-8-2015 by blogfast25]

aga - 24-8-2015 at 10:01

Thankyou for the formula.

Will write that down and keep it.

So ... if the thumper were say 2m above the boiling pot, and Large, e.g. 0.5m tall, when it fills sufficiently to cover the output pipe of the boiling pot, the temperature of the vapours should increase by a few degrees, as the pot is slightly pressurised.

Also, the density of the pot liquid is changing (getting denser) as the EtOH vapours are leaving, which may have some significance.

[Edited on 24-8-2015 by aga]

Magpie - 24-8-2015 at 10:33

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Would insulating a thumper help or hinder?

The thumper acts like a stage in a distillation column right? In a another thread some time ago we discussed whether or not a distillation column should be insulated. We decided that it should.

My recollection of industrial distillation columns is that they are insulated.

blogfast25 - 24-8-2015 at 15:10

Quote: Originally posted by Magpie

Oh G-d, not that bloody old chestnut again!

Yes, if one has the means to create reflux at the top of the column then insulation is much to be desired.

Industrial column have elaborate reflux/reboiler system and the columns are well insulated.

But many OCers (like me) use non-insulated or partly insulated columns because they have no refluxer at the top. In that case reflux is created by means of natural condensation.

With regards thumpers I have some evidence that what I called Hloss maybe important for the functioning of the thumper I could be wrong on that of course.

'Only one way to find out'., as they say...

[Edited on 24-8-2015 by blogfast25]

hyfalcon - 24-8-2015 at 18:23

Has anyone heard from Zombie?

Corrosive Joeseph - 24-8-2015 at 18:59

Quote: Originally posted by hyfalcon

Has anyone heard from Zombie?

He hasn't been online since the 9th of July.

Pages: 1 .. 6 7 8