| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8
9
10
..
30 |
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  | | I stated from the very beginning that this takes the extra input to heat both the boiler, and then the thumper to come "on line" or heat up.
|
Relax, we're not agreeing just yet.
I've ignored all thermal mass and coincidental heat loss in my arguments. Fact is, even after you've reached operating temperatures you must choose
between reflux (and more energy) or substantial loss of product.
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 Zombie | As mr. Blogfast pointed out, this is a very simple experiment to conduct. Scale will determine time to run, but I believe nothing else will be
effected.
Let me know when you need my input.
|
I will hold you to the first part because I don't trust you anymore.
On the second point you'll have honest input on the operating conditions. We'll adopt them if it's doable.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | [We have ALL done side by side runs both with, and with out thumpers.
If that counts to you as an experiment, then we could have saved 9 hours.
|
Nope. Nothing has been presented to that effect. Vague statements invoking your hillbilly brethren, nothing more.
You don't even recognise that 'proofing' is pretty meaningless.
Changing goalposts is your entire game here, 'cowboy'.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | Zombie: No offense taken (although I'm about ready to visit you and beat you senseless with a book  ). I've always liked distillation, and since we just covered this in school it's fresh in my mind. I can honestly say
that this thread has forced me to think very thoroughly through everything I've learned, and I feel I've gained significant insight from this fight.
So no hard feelings, on the contrary I'd like to thank everyone involved. |
Thanks, I could use a good beatin' right about now.
Funny the post that came up right under yours... It's all good.
Exhausting, but enjoyable have to go get dog food. 7 Presa Canarios don't like to wait.
I'll draw up a simple line CAD to give you an idea of the apparatus, and plumbing, and the operating parameters ie: run speed, and heat control. It
will match exactly how it is done full scale because I see no variances at all there.
If you can find a beer or wine that is close to 10% abv, that will match what is used full scale so we eliminate all the potential "errors".
You'll here NO whinnig from me.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Data is good. I don't expect any miracles, but so far we've discussed a device based on pretty vague descriptions. Some accurate information would be
appreciated, at least I should be able to prove you wrong more thoroughly 
On a side note, all forums need a proper fight every now and then. This has been a good one so far.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | | Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | | I stated from the very beginning that this takes the extra input to heat both the boiler, and then the thumper to come "on line" or heat up.
|
Relax, we're not agreeing just yet.
I've ignored all thermal mass and coincidental heat loss in my arguments. Fact is, even after you've reached operating temperatures you must choose
between reflux (and more energy) or substantial loss of product. |
I didn't understand the last bit...
To keep it simple you are correct. The boiler, and thumper need to be as CLOSE together as can be. If they were coffee cans, a pack of smokes would
fit between them.
No insulation of any kind. but no setting the thumper on a marble slab either. Real world model...
Actually for thermal efficiency, as in full scale, the thump should be approx 1/2 the size of the boiler.
Boiler is filled approx 3/4 full, and the thump about 1/2 full.
Thump MUST be sealed, leak free and only pot in / product out lines
without knowing your gear, maybe a rbf, and 2 hole stopper for a thump?
DOG FOOD CALLS>>>
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Erm, isn't Science all about judging Theories on the Hard Data obtained during testing (aka experimentation) ?
What % increase/decrease can one expect using a 100% perfectly operating Thumper ?
Is there ANY experimental data showing this +/- change in ethanol concentration by use of a 'thumper' ?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Please take into account they've been doing this for two hundred years or so!
Like the Chinese have been using ground up frogs for all kinds of ailments, for thousands of years!
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | As mr. Blogfast pointed out, this is a very simple experiment to conduct. Scale will determine time to run, but I believe nothing else will be
effected.
Let me know when you need my input.
|
I will hold you to the first part because I don't trust you anymore.
On the second point you'll have honest input on the operating conditions. We'll adopt them if it's doable. |
You can trust me sir. I respect your knowledge, and time spent sharing with others.
The first part has to be hard earned, and the second part most people just won' do.
No worries, no tears. 
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Loptr
International Hazard
Posts: 1348
Registered: 20-5-2014
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Grateful
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | Delta: I have never claimed it couldn't increase concentration, I've said so since page one. What I have tried to explain is that it can't increase
concentration "for free" as it is claimed. You either have to spend more energy reboiling the reflux or toss out part of the product. This is what my
revised sim is showing, a partial condensation split into two streams. If the bottom stream is returned to the boiler it's a complete second stage
that will produce higher concentration at the cost of more energy, if not recovery is seriously diminished.
You are correct in that feed can be introduced other places than at the boiler, in fact this is the proper approach for continuous feed distillation.
It should not be confused with reflux though, without reflux you cannot get beyond the equilibrium dictated by the feed.
[Edited on 16-2-15 by Fulmen] |
A quick google search returned multiple listing explaining how this "thumper" supposedly works, and with as many results as I have found, I have seen
as many variations of the explaination.
I think semantics are getting in the way too much here, such as "free", which I highly doubt that these backwoods hillbillies have ever heard of
thermodynamics, let alone understand it to determine whether the "thumper" provides a second distillation that occurs without any additional energy
being expended. I think this much is *blindingly* obvious, otherwise this is a futile exercise of matching up ignorant regurgitation to scientific
principles.
Yes, I have read this thread, before anyone asks. I think the only focus of this exercise should be to determine if the resultant condensate contains
a higher EtOH content by volume with a "thumper", compared to the same equipment setup without one.
I also think if you attempt to "think like a hillbilly", you will come to the same conclusions they did that led to the creation of the "thumper". It
was likely an attempt to reduce the number of distillations it took to get the desired alcohol content, and should only be viewed as their
attempt at a solution. Any attempt to elucidate more from it than that runs the course of ambiguity, and hence all the different explanations of its
function.
I think it is a highly inefficient attempt at an inline second stage distillation. Period. Whatever it actually is has led to this eight page thread.
Monkey see, monkey do.
[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Loptr]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Plain or patterned toilet paper on the premise's WC?
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Erm, isn't Science all about judging Theories on the Hard Data obtained during testing (aka experimentation) ?
What % increase/decrease can one expect using a 100% perfectly operating Thumper ?
Is there ANY experimental data showing this +/- change in ethanol concentration by use of a 'thumper' ? |
An average pot still will boil out a 10% mash at around 80ish proof.
A thumper rig will boil it out around 100 proof.
So roughly Id say around 25% increase.
One more parameter fellas... You have to stop the run when the product from the thumper reaches 40 proof or 20% ABV.
Same for the raw Boiler run. It has to shut down at 20% or 40 proof.
These are real world numbers. You take your average of the total combined run as your end proof.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Erm, isn't Science all about judging Theories on the Hard Data obtained during testing (aka experimentation) ?
|
Yes. But science isn't just about empiricism either.
Any twit who claims to have made a perpetual motion machine needs not be countered by experiments proving him wrong.
The Second Law tells us PMMs cannot work. We don't need to prove the Second Law again.
[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Loptr | | Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | Delta: I have never claimed it couldn't increase concentration, I've said so since page one. What I have tried to explain is that it can't increase
concentration "for free" as it is claimed. You either have to spend more energy reboiling the reflux or toss out part of the product. This is what my
revised sim is showing, a partial condensation split into two streams. If the bottom stream is returned to the boiler it's a complete second stage
that will produce higher concentration at the cost of more energy, if not recovery is seriously diminished.
You are correct in that feed can be introduced other places than at the boiler, in fact this is the proper approach for continuous feed distillation.
It should not be confused with reflux though, without reflux you cannot get beyond the equilibrium dictated by the feed.
[Edited on 16-2-15 by Fulmen] |
A quick google search returned multiple listing explaining how this "thumper" supposedly works, and with as many results as I have found, I have seen
as many variations of the explaination.
I think semantics are getting in the way too much here, such as "free", which I highly doubt that these backwoods hillbillies have ever heard of
thermodynamics, let alone understand it to determine whether the "thumper" provides a second distillation that occurs without any additional energy
being expended. I think this much is *blindingly* obvious, otherwise this is a futile exercise of matching up ignorant regurgitation to scientific
principles.
Yes, I have read this thread, before anyone asks. I think the only focus of this exercise should be to determine if the resultant condensate contains
a higher EtOH content by volume with a "thumper", compared to the same equipment setup without one.
I also think if you attempt to "think like a hillbilly", you will come to the same conclusions they did that led to the creation of the "thumper". It
was likely an attempt to reduce the number of distillations it took to get the desired alcohol content, and should only be viewed as their
attempt at a solution. Any attempt to elucidate more from it than that runs the course of ambiguity, and hence all the different explanations of its
function.
I think it is a highly inefficient attempt at an inline second stage distillation. Period. Whatever it actually is has led to this eight page thread.
Monkey see, monkey do.
[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Loptr] |
Happy to have ya, and I agree with you 100%. Keep it simple, and judge ABV period. The rest explains itself as it happens.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Well, basically I'm assuming steady state conditions. I know a batch still isn't a steady state process, but if you look at the conditions at any
given time it should correspond to a steady state. Besides, my arguments are not based on any given conditions but the dynamics of the process, so
they should apply regardless.
Aga: You're right, science is the art of building working models from observable facts. But in this case all the models has been built, and they've
been tested (and confirmed) far more than anyone here can hope to accomplish in a lifetime. This is why we make models: So we don't have to test
everything by trial and error.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Fuck, I'm SUCH a nerd. I've finally gotten some vacation after working my ass off at school, and what do I do? And the worst part is that I'm actually
considering this to be a good way to spend my week of. Sigh...
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
|
|
PMMs are easy - just need a Perpetual Energy source !
|
|
|
morganbw
National Hazard
Posts: 561
Registered: 23-11-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Guys be careful, sometimes it is possible to be so dang sure on how the physical laws work that it gives a certain clarity. We see too clear. I
promise you that clarity can blind you.
It does not change the laws but, it disallows me/you to see how it could fit into some odd areas.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Nice one morganbw
It helps to remember how New our understanding of the workings of the universe is, and how obvious it is that we certainly do not understand it much
at all - yet.
Edit:
@Fulmen's sig :
"We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together."
Medical knowledge can allow us to put a slightly damaged man back together.
If the man is properly Broken, we can't do a damned thing.
[Edited on 16-2-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
There are plenty of such instances, I just don't think this one of them.
It's also much easier to be blinded by pseudo-mystical mumbo jumbo than to simply look at simple laws and explanations.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Ok,
I have a stick rendering, and I think all the important guidelines.
Just a few common sense ones here... Pot / thumper as close together as possible.
Both at same level (bases)
Flow rate of output is critical. Minimum product condensing water flow, and minimum heat required to maintain a broken stream into collection vessel.
This is the MOST IMPORTANT point I can make...
The outcome has no teams or bragging rights.
I have too much respect for all of you that are involved to make this a pissing contest.
Any questions along the way I will be happy to provide input, without changing parameters or running for the other goal.
This is the first time that I can find that anyone has run this experiment. That does not mean it has not been run before but from where I sit, the
results have a real world value.
Thank you all for this marathon 22 hour keyboard session. God Bless...
Ken
Had to edit: control heat to maintain a broken stream condenser out put
(that got lost from the image)
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by Zombie]
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by Zombie]
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by Zombie]
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | | Frankly I don't know how you or anyone else expects to test this idea without running into that argument, for semi-legitimate reasons. In the brief
time I've spent researching this idea, I've already lost count of the different methods I've seen. Most of them are probably bunk. (The one about
throwing high-proof alcohol into the thumper beforehand is obviously effective and just as obviously useless. |
Then we must simply ditch the idea of empiricism altogether.
Each time the 'opposition' doesn't like experimental results they can then ditch them as 'not proper'.
I can't see how you can't see this. |
Because, and you know this as a man of science, there are many methods which only work under very specific conditions. Remember how long it took for
reproducible results in the "making potassium" thread? I didn't believe there was anything to it reading through, until I came across the first
confirmation. Hell, a lab consistently oxidized a benzylic alcohol with sodium hydride (some kind of contamination or atmospheric interaction going
on). If you only test one method, you can only say that that one method doesn't work, aside from some reasonable extrapolations. And there are so
many methods there could be people out there with excellently working thumpers, and a bunch of others not getting any improvement but suffering from
some quasi-placebo effect, they could all work to some extent, they could all be bunk...
I know this gets thrown about a lot by both skeptics and believers, but it's worth mentioning, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Both
sides have reasonable enough interpretations of what is/isn't going on that I'm torn between expecting either outcome. I think it's likely enough that
the naysayers are simply assuming different conditions. Hell, every one of us could be. Your experiment will be a good start at pinning things down.
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | And yes, me and Fulmen have explained why this can't work. You just don't like our explanation, without of course offering anything in return (that's
your right). |
Sure, I've offered something, in exact counterpart to what you've offered, an explanation. Condensing alcohol/water vapor less than 190 proof, and
redistilling from there, concentrates the alcohol. Nobody has yet offered an explanation for why this is suddenly not true if hillbillies
build the condenser.
EDIT: I'd like to add that of course this wouldn't happen "for free" (not sure why this is being argued against as a serious position), and the result
of the experiment is likely to sway me despite the existence of other methods as I don't have any personal experience distilling with a thumper.
[Edited on 2-17-2015 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Because I stated free in my first post on the thread.
Meaning you do not need dedicated power to the thumper because the ethanol / water vapor provides the distillation power.
I still stand by that. It is actually the crux of what makes this work.
I think the parameters are secure enough, and easy enough to achieve. No concerns over "mistakes or "user error. It's a solid plan, and I have every
confidence in these fellas.
Just Please run an image or a game plan by us here first. That way we are in perfect agreement before anything is begun.
Thinks like a ceramic boiler won't work... Common sense.
[Edited on 17-2-2015 by Zombie]
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Luke
Harmless
Posts: 20
Registered: 25-9-2014
Location: Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How are you going to decide how much energy to put into the setup with a thumper and the setup without a thumper? The setup with a thumper is going
to need more energy.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Luke | | How are you going to decide how much energy to put into the setup with a thumper and the setup without a thumper? The setup with a thumper is going
to need more energy. |
The thumper people don't do that either: they just heat.
We will heat both the same way, that's a fair comparison.
You are of course already trying to pick holes and we haven't even done anything yet!
I suggest that as a 'believer' you run your own experiment, one in which you account for all heats.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
6
7
8
9
10
..
30 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
