| Pages:
1
..
9
10
11
12
13
..
30 |
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  | | Quote: Originally posted by deltaH | I was under the impression that the liquid level in the thumper doesn't keep increasing post start-up, no?
|
But Delta, HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE?? An uncooled pot like that MUST act in part as a condenser, BY DEFINITION, almost! |
In part, but the heat losses to the air is small, it doesn't have a large surface area and it's convective cooling which is also not large, compared
to a water cooled condenser that is.
I read http://homedistiller.org/equip/designs/thumper to try to answer this issue of the size of the thumper, they make the point that you don't want it
too small because the extra alcohol has to come from the volume of what was originally placed there and as it's depleted, it works worse and worse
until it has little effect. That makes sense to me, so yes, that jar does look a little small, but then again, it is recommended to use distillate
tails to charge it, which would help to have more alcohol in a smaller volume of course.
There's probably an optimal size born out of experience with these things. I'd say it's probably made as large as the tails generated from
distillation from a certain sized rig.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by deltaH |
In part, but the heat losses to the air is small, it doesn't have a large surface area and it's convective cooling which is also not large, compared
to a water cooled condenser that is.
|
Totally subjective. What if you use a fairly large copper thumper on a cold night in the Appalachian Mountains? 
The point stands: the thumper MUST fill up, slowly or quickly is fairly irrelevant.
| Quote: Originally posted by deltaH |
There's probably an optimal size born out of experience with these things. I'd say it's probably made as large as the tails generated from
distillation from a certain sized rig. |
Look at the designs on the Tinkerwebs: there's no real discernable pattern.
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by deltaH |
In part, but the heat losses to the air is small, it doesn't have a large surface area and it's convective cooling which is also not large, compared
to a water cooled condenser that is.
|
The point stands: the thumper MUST fill up, slowly or quickly is fairly irrelevant.
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25] |
I think there need merely be enough room for one run... what's that, a couple of hours for a couple gallon still?
You could also do something exotic, like pipe a tube with a tap to 'relieve' it back into the still periodically during a run and have an easy way of
filling it with fresh distillate afterwards. Then you would have true reflux... well the batch-wise equivalent anyhow
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by deltaH | That makes sense to me, so yes, that jar does look a little small, but then again, it is recommended to use distillate tails to charge it, which would
help to have more alcohol in a smaller volume of course.
|
Why not put 100 % proof in it? Then claim you're 'doubling'? Could work but not what we're discussing here.
Yep, turn it into a proper refluxer, again: not what we're talking about. Not the thumpy people either...
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by deltaH | That makes sense to me, so yes, that jar does look a little small, but then again, it is recommended to use distillate tails to charge it, which would
help to have more alcohol in a smaller volume of course.
|
Why not put 100 % proof in it? Then claim you're 'doubling'? Could work but not what we're discussing here.
Yep, turn it into a proper refluxer, again: not what we're talking about. Not the thumpy people either...
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25] |
The thing is, as I understand it, there's no need for a proper reflux for making 'likker' since it's not that difficult an enrichment based on the
phase equilibrium discussed earlier. So really, this seems to be a very simple solution that gets the job done. If so, then hats off 
The only advantage from more trays and employing reflux is you can increase the alcohol recovered because employing a reflux ratio gives you that
extra degree of freedom, but that comes at the cost of extra energy consumed to run the boiler, so really that 'ain't free neither'.
Apologies... I feel the need to start speaking 'billy. 
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
delta H:
Of course it's not free, whatever you do. No contest.
Secondary argument (already made to be fair):
If this little trick works, how come you don't read about it in engineering textbooks, journals or even half-decent internet sources (you know, the
ones that might feel the need to substantiate things with experimental data)?
I posit it to you that it's for the same reason no decent person would publish anything substantiating the 'HOH' crapola: it DOESN'T WORK!
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
"it DOESN'T WORK! "
I'm waiting for the experimental evaluation from you and SM members before calling it, since to me it looks at least plausible.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by deltaH | "it DOESN'T WORK! "
I'm waiting for the experimental evaluation from you and SM members before calling it, since to me it looks at least plausible.
|
You've not addressed my point though: if it does work why is the information available about it of such abominable quality? Not to mention scarce?
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by deltaH | "it DOESN'T WORK! "
I'm waiting for the experimental evaluation from you and SM members before calling it, since to me it looks at least plausible.
|
You've not addressed my point though: if it does work why is the information available about it of such abominable quality? |
Cause snobbish academics wouldn't touch anything 'billy with a ten foot pole 
To be fair though, this is just another way to operate a distillation process, there's probably case specific weird and wonderful setups and tricks
employed in industrial columns not necessarily well published, they are just simply different designs and variations on a theme. The toolbox for
variation on distillation is vast, you can use re-heaters, pump-arounds and and and... I don't even know half of all the crazy things that can be done
and is done in this field. So basically, I think it's not commented on by the greater scientific community because it's application is a bit narrow.
It suites 'shining, but really the advantages are not that great out of that context were other means would suit better.
...and maybe there is reliable literature out there somewhere to be unearthed. I doubt the keyword "thumper" would be referenced in the type of
literature you're looking for, so in short, it probably is out there somewhere.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A bit like Bertrand Russel's Celestial Teapot?
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
I'm trying to dig through patents now, because this sounds like the kind of thing that would have been patented at some point in time. A patent
usually publishes some numbers in their 'examples' section.
No luck yet, probably because of the vast wealth of distillation related patents out there and also the funny unnatural language patents use.
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by deltaH]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Lily-livered librul academics are 'fraid they's gonna beat up by them billys with their baseball bats, for publishing their Appalachian secrets, bro.
What goes on in Appalachia stays in Appalachia!
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
it's called a double retort:
Notice what appears to be overflow pipes to return liquid to the still
see here:
http://eatsdrinksandsleeps.com/page/5/
Image looks very old. Apparently standard in the traditional rum making method?
I used google's similar image search and found another in an old book where it also appears to be used but called a rectifier.
See (PS. scroll down):
http://chestofbooks.com/food/beverages/Alcohol-Properties/De...
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by deltaH]
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
In reference to the submergence of the vapor pipe from the still: I don't know how much the typical moonshiner submerged the outlet but it would
elevate the bp of the wash in the pot above that obtained using atmospheric pressure. 2.3 ft of water submergence is equivalent to 1 psi.
Zombie is likely taking one much needed nap, or he had to go to work, or both. He has been giving his all for science.
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by Magpie]
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
From that link:
| Quote: | | Alcohol boils as at lower temperature (78.3° C) to water 100° C. So when the pot still is heated, alcoholic vapour will be released before water is,
it passes into the low wine retort, a second copper vessel which contains an alcoholic mix of low wines and water. The hot vapour
passing through, boils the liquid in the retort, releasing its most volatile components. This vapour is now more concentrated in flavour and is
carried through to the high wines retort, where the process is repeated. The vapour is now high strength and is condensed. By
adjusting the composition of liquids in the low and high wines retorts, a distiller can create a range of different flavours. |
The 'thumpers' are already charged with alcohol.
Eatsdrinksandsleeps, science 101 indeed!
Oh, yes: 'chestofbooks', Zzzzzzz....
Is that all you've got?
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Magpie | In reference to the submergence of the vapor pipe from the still: I don't know how much the typical moonshiner submerged the outlet but it would
elevate the bp of the wash in the pot above that obtained using atmospheric pressure. 2.3 ft of water submergence is equivalent to 1 psi.
Zombie is likely taking one much needed nap, or he had to go to work, or both. He has been giving his all for science.
|
C'mon Magpie, you're grasping at straws. Do you know what the influence of 1 psi on BP is??? 
Next you'll come up with bubble sizes, surface tension and air humidity!
"... his all for science". I assume there was an emoticon missing there!
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
deltaH: The last link shows a pipe that I interpret as the return flow, making it a full stage. The first one is harder to tell, but there is
something there as well.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | | deltaH: The last link shows a pipe that I interpret as the return flow, making it a full stage. The first one is harder to tell, but there is
something there as well. |
Both look exactly the same. But full stages that leak heat unimpeded? The heat loss must cause extra condensation.
More like inefficient refluxers...
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
It's the same principle really. Whether the reflux is controlled by an external condenser and divider or by partial condensation in the stage itself
is irrelevant for the principle. It acts like a cooled fractionating column, not unlike what we would set up in the lab.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
To my simple mind it seems like this :-
Start Condition: Boiling pot & Thumper pot contain e.g 50w% EtOH, equal volumes
Begin heating Boiling pot.
EtOH starts leaving Boiling pot, and instantly condenses in the cooler Thumper pot liquid.
This increases the Thumper pot volume, temperature and w% of EtOH.
Eventually the temperature in the Thumper pot is sufficient for the EtOH in there to begin leaving, to be recovered in the condenser.
The main difference is that the now boiling Thumper liquid has a higher w% of EtOH than the original Boiling pot liquid.
Would anyone here have any experience in Ethanol/water distillation where the w% of the stock liquid has a marked impact on the w% of the distillate
in a simple distillation ?
Would a higher concentration of ethanol:water impact in any significant way on the distillate concentration ?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga |
Would anyone here have any experience in Ethanol/water distillation where the w% of the stock liquid has a marked impact on the w% of the distillate
in a simple distillation ?
Would a higher concentration of ethanol:water impact in any significant way on the distillate concentration ? |
These questions are quite accurately answered by the EtOH/water boiling point/composition diagram, which delta H linked to a few pages higher up.
Here:
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=61566&...
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Dullard that i am, the graph is a bit incomprehensible, with the X axis labeled 'Y ethanol' and the Y axis unlabelled.
If i understand anything from it, does that mean that you get a bigger w% EtOH change starting from a Low EtOH concentration than you would starting
from a High EtOH conc ?
If so, the w% of the Thumper liquid should end up fairly close to that of the end product.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Aga:
x axis is EtOH, y axis is water. The curve relates the vapour composition (higher in EtOH) to the liquid composition (lower in EtOH).
Each 'step' of the 'stairs' shown is 1 single stage distillation (= 1 evaporation + 1 condensation).
Start from a higher EtOH, you end up with a higher EtOH. More 'steps' also means more EtOH.
The number of 'steps' depends on set up: Vigreux = more steps than no Vigreux for example...
[Edited on 18-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | Aga:
x axis is EtOH, y axis is water. The curve relates the vapour composition (higher in EtOH) to the liquid composition (lower in EtOH).
|
No, I think that the x-axis is "mole fraction ethanol in liquid" and the y-axis is "mole fraction ethanol in vapor." I have this same diagram in my
"Principles of Unit Operations" book by Foust et al. It is a vapor-liquid equilibrium (VLE) diagram for the system ethanol-water. deltaH please
verify.
One of the often repeated phrases in this discussion is that heating a solution of water and ethanol drives off ethanol as a vapor as if it were only
ethanol that was evaporating. Ethanol is never alone in the vapor but is always accompanied by water vapor.
[Edited on 18-2-2015 by Magpie]
The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Oh.
Start with more, get more, just Less % difference.
So if the starting condition was the same in the Boiling pot and the Thumper, then the increased EtOH concentration in the Thumper pot *before* it
starts boiling Will give a higher EtOH concentration in the end product, as it will be starting from a higher EtOH conc.
If so, it should end up the case that the Thumper output will have a higher w% than a straight non-Thumping distillation.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
9
10
11
12
13
..
30 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
