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

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

You presented a Hypothesis, well sir (you know what is required

)
You have to attempt to disprove it

Higher up I've given the example of NOT having to try and disprove the hypothesis in the case of the chemical conversion of lead to gold.

It's not necessary to conduct experiments re. the chemical conversion of lead to gold because First Principles prove beyond reasonable doubt that it can't be done.

Equally I consider 'thumpers don't work' to have been proved from First Principles.

Having said that, if my confrere (who will remain unnamed until he fully consents) agrees to carry out the experiment then we will. I'm currently off ill and couldn't do it if they paid me for it, sadly.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Agree, my opinion ( which is only opinion) is that the careful control of temperature maters more than the thumper. (opinion only )

Perhaps I may have a lottery ticket to bear fruit someday and I could do more that talk and actually do some carefully controlled experiments.
Unfortunately in the world of science biased experiments can happen to easily.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 09:04

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

Unfortunately in the world of science biased experiments can happen to easily.

Sure, but the experiment we have in mind is so simple anyone could reproduce it and verify any bias.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 09:04

While experiments are always useful, there really isn't any need for it here. This is well known physics, there is nothing new to be discovered here (at least not from this experiment). But if it helps you understand the physics, by all means go for it.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 09:06

Yeah... I was gonna post up a bunch of horse poop, and say SEE!!!

I can only tell you truthfully from REAL WORLD experience. a thumper when properly run (as described for an experiment) will add approx. 20% abv. to a finished product.

The only "cost" is the time spent waiting for the thumper to come on line, and the energy used waiting for this to happen.

If the experiment is done here, and fails, it is only because it was done incorrectly, and I did explain how to run it so...

I love you guys already. The passion you all show for what you do is commendable.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 09:08

While experiments are always useful, there really isn't any need for it here. This is well known physics, there is nothing new to be discovered here (at least not from this experiment). But if it helps you understand the physics, by all means go for it.

Are you, and Blog neighbors? Room mates? Kin?

5 pages in 12 hours... Nice topic Blog!

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 09:13

If the experiment is done here, and fails, it is only because it was done incorrectly, and I did explain how to run it so...

Already that is a deeply SHAMEFUL thing to say. It's idiotic.

'You didn't get my results because you didn't do it properly'. The type of criticism already anticipated higher up.

You really are an insufferable twit. :mad:

And still you expect me to conduct an experiment.

What people like you do on a science site is beyond me. Go take up knitting. Or at least keep your crap to yourself.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 09:15

Are you, and Blog neighbors? Room mates? Kin?

More emotive bull from the resident imbecile.

GO AWAY.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 09:19

Are you, and Blog neighbors? Room mates? Kin?

More emotive bull from the resident imbecile.

GO AWAY.

No need to take any of this personal. It's just a mix of words.

Fuel for the fire to see this happen. :cool:

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 09:24

It's just a mix of words.

Yeah, word salad is definitely your speciality.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 09:32

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 09:44

Nope, not related or neighbors. It's just that we both know what the h*ll we're talking about

DJF90 - 16-2-2015 at 09:49

It wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong, would it Gert? The reduction of potassium hydroxide by magnesium (stickied thread) rings a distict sounding bell.

I don't know either way, and I don't have the free time to invest in this on a practical level. But in your theoretical considerations, you may be missing factors (how about the differing heat capacities of ethanol and water and binary mixtures thereof?). Give it a fair chance without being biased - experiment is king.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 10:04

Quote: Originally posted by DJF90

It wouldn't be the first time you've been wrong, would it Gert? The reduction of potassium hydroxide by magnesium (stickied thread) rings a distict sounding bell.

Great logic, DJF90. I was wrong about something ergo I must be wrong about this too. Even basic logic escapes you. Smearing on the other hand suits you down to the ground.

What, by the way was wrong with the reduction of potassium hydroxide by magnesium. Do explain, you know?

Re. experiments on thumpers, a fellow experimenter and myself will carry out this experiment. Unlike you of course...

Quote:

how about the differing heat capacities of ethanol and water and binary mixtures thereof

Neither enlightens, nor explains.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Die Antwoord

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:14

First, some inspiration, who better than the South African group "Die Antwoord" meaning, The Answer, and their song "Cookie Thumper"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nrF5aXPlQ

Now for some chemical engineering, I have simulated this process using the open source process engineering software called COCO which I have rant and raved about forever now...

http://www.cocosimulator.org/

See file attached of my simulation.

Okay, I don't know much about brewing, so like a good engineer I made some assumptions.

Firstly, I can only simulate steady state operations so I've had to come up with a setup that approximates as thumper in steady state operation.

I assumed the feed is 5 wt. % alcohol, entirely thumb sucked, I have no idea what is the usual concentration here.

I've used a NRTL equilibrium model, this is an advanced model that ought to accurately describe the non-ideal behaviour of water-ethanol, for what it's worth.

I've assumed that the 'still' boils up 10% of the feed continuously (again thumb sucked number), this resulted in a vapour with an alcohol mole fraction of 0.105

Then to simulate the thumper in my steady state process. I mixed this vapour stream with another feed at the same concentration and flowrate as the original, but at 73°C.

The result surprised me I must say. After splitting the mixed stream into vapour and liquid fractions using an adiabatic flash operation, the vapour alcohol concentration jumped to 0.177 mole fraction.

Please shout if you want changes made and I'll do my best to accommodate them.

Attachment: Thumper COFE simulation.fsd (52kB)
This file has been downloaded 680 times

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 10:21

The result surprised me I must say. After splitting the mixed stream into vapour and liquid fractions using an adiabatic flash operation, the vapour alcohol concentration jumped to 0.177 mole fraction.

How does an uninsulated pot constitute an adiabatic flash operation?

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:26

No, that's just for ease of viewing, basically just splits the incoming stream, which is a mix of vapour and liquid, it's the mixer itself (before this unit) which actually simulates the 'thumper'. The flash unit doesn't do anything but split off the portion of the stream vapour into one stream and the portion liquid into another.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 10:27

What does "steady state mean?

The initial boiler, and thumper charges should be approx 10% but I guess that number can be anything.

The math the simulator did is correct in that the output will be higher due to vapor leaching more vapor thru vapor / liquid interaction.

My concern is if steady state means constant temp... Then the number for the result is lower than if the model could follow a curve in temp to follow the shifting mole fractions in the vessels.

That is a great starting point however. Thank you for taking the time to run it.
I have KG Tower software but it will not run a simple process.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:28

Incidently, if the temperature of the feed of the thumper rised significantly above 73C, then the conc. of the alcohol drops in the final vapour, it also drops if it's too low, I manually tried a few number to find a rough optimum.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:34

Steady state means it's running continuously and the compositions and conditions in a unit don't change with time. This is not how home batch distillation is carried out, but it is how industrial processes run.

It's not the same thing obviously, but with some thought into designing the setup, you can get a simulation that captures what's going on and glean some understanding, certainly can allow us to see if we can increase the concentration of alcohol by passing vapours through a pool of hot feed a second time.

My main gripe with this approach is this temperature of the second feed, the 73C I chose. This is thumb sucked, I don't know what the temperature in a real thumper is. If it's lower or higher, it won't work so well.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 10:38

delta:

Thumper 'theory' relies on temperature of the still vapour going up. As indeed it does in batch operations.

That and everything else they can throw at it, kitchen sink included.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:39

What I am trying to say is that in a batch operation, you don't 'set' the temperature of the thumper, it sets itself by it's operating point which is the simultaneous solution of the mass and energy balances and equilibrium of course.

Anybody ever measured the temperature in a thumper? I can then enter this number into my simulation.

***

No the temperature dropped in my simulation

***
The drop in temperature makes perfect sense because as the concentration of the alcohol goes up, the temperature must surely drop. I'm seeing this as a type of second stage of sorts, but normally where you would use reflux liquid from the down-commer of the next stage or condenser, here hot feed liquid serves as reflux and because it's not as concentrated as what the down-commer liquid would be, you don't get as good enrichment as you would with a proper second stage, but you do get some enrichment.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by deltaH]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 10:44

Steady state means it's running continuously and the compositions and conditions in a unit don't change with time. This is not how home batch distillation is carried out, but it is how industrial processes run.

It's not the same thing obviously, but with some thought into designing the setup, you can get a simulation that captures what's going on and glean some understanding, certainly can allow us to see if we can increase the concentration of alcohol by passing vapours through a pool of hot feed a second time.

My main gripe with this approach is this temperature of the second feed, the 73C I chose. This is thumb sucked, I don't know what the temperature in a real thumper is. If it's lower or higher, it won't work so well.

I can give you that temp, and the mole fraction.

They are on a graph around page three of this thread. I'll find it.

Boffis - 16-2-2015 at 10:47

I find it hard to believe that such a simple idea can cause so much trading of insults.

The process is very very simple and doesn't violate anything! DeltaH is onto the right track. Stop thinking about the "thumper" as a secondary still but as a partial condenser. If the feed vapor is less than 95% ethanol, which it will always be in this case, any condensate that forms in the system will contain less alcohol per unit mass than the residual vapor. Therefore the residual vapor will be slightly enriched in alcohol relative to the "feed". No principles on conservation of energy or thermodynamics are violated because the mass of the residual vapor is less, its temperature will probably also have fallen and so will the latent heat of vaporisation of the remaining components since the LHV of water is significantly higher than alcohol.

In effect a "thumper" is a single-plate Coffey type rectifier; pretty much like Zombie's illustration on the very first page of this thread.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 10:48

Try 90.5*c @ 10% ABV

That is the boiling point at that charge. You may have to bump up the temp Slightly.

As the ABV in the boiler goes down so does the boil point in the thumper.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:49

blogfast, I think if you think of this along the lines of traditional industrial columns, it's similar to operating a two stage column with two feeds, one to the boiler and one to the top of tray one and running a total condenser. That top feed then 'becomes' your reflux. I can simulate that 'column' in chemsep, another free program.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:52

Zombie, my simulation is different so you won't get the same result, 90C also leads to an enhancement, but not as much as 73C does. The mole fraction of the vapours is now 0.155 (still better than 0.105 though).

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 10:52

blogfast, I think if you think of this along the lines of traditional industrial columns, it's similar to operating a two stage column with two feeds, one to the boiler and one to the top of tray one and running a total condenser. That top feed then 'becomes' your reflux. I can simulate that 'column' in chemsep, another free program.

G-d knows how many have tried to make that argument here already.

Your analogy is deeply flawed.

If something so simple as a 'thumper' worked, oil refineries would be full of them.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 10:53

They're not used in refineries because normal reflux works much better, I can prove it to you (one way or the other), because that is my speculation, but I can draw up two simulations of these two types of columns

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by deltaH]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 10:55

What I am trying to say is that in a batch operation, you don't 'set' the temperature of the thumper, it sets itself by it's operating point which is the simultaneous solution of the mass and energy balances and equilibrium of course.

Anybody ever measured the temperature in a thumper? I can then enter this number into my simulation.

***

No the temperature dropped in my simulation

***
The drop in temperature makes perfect sense because as the concentration of the alcohol goes up, the temperature must surely drop. I'm seeing this as a type of second stage of sorts, but normally where you would use reflux liquid from the down-commer of the next stage or condenser, here hot feed liquid serves as reflux and because it's not as concentrated as what the down-commer liquid would be, you don't get as good enrichment as you would with a proper second stage, but you do get some enrichment.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by deltaH]

This scenario is also correct. What is missing is the boiler temp rising, and in turn raising the thumper temp.

Boiler temp being relevant to reduced ABV

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 10:57

Sorry, just had to pop out for some beer

Zombie, just to clarify things a bit:
This thumper, does it produce condensate? If so, how is this handled? Discarded, kept as product or returned to the still?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 10:57

Zombie, my simulation is different so you won't get the same result, 90C also leads to an enhancement, but not as much as 73C does. The mole fraction of the vapours is now 0.155 (still better than 0.105 though).

It's still missing the temp. curve but the result is obviously correct.

I gave you the exact boiling point for the mix ratio. Perhaps bump up the temp a dergee or so, and see if that raises the percentage.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:00

G-d knows how many have tried to make that argument here already.

Your analogy is deeply flawed.

If something so simple as a 'thumper' worked, oil refineries would be full of them.

His analogy is actually correct. It is a 2 stage distillation.

Thumpers are not as efficient as a plate, and they only work under a very narrow window of parameters. That's why they do not use them in petro chemical .

aga - 16-2-2015 at 11:02

Do the 'oldtimers' say anything about Flavour difference with/without a Thumper ?

Or, for example, the duration/presence of the 'heads' and 'tails' ?

I love the term 'slobber box'.

Definitely need one of those at times.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:06

Sorry, just had to pop out for some beer

Zombie, just to clarify things a bit:
This thumper, does it produce condensate? If so, how is this handled? Discarded, kept as product or returned to the still?

It is a partial condensate. In the end the thumper will have about the same level of liquid as it started with. Slightly more.

The reason is the alch 10% initial charge gets spent. Lets say that is one out of 4 gallons. so three remain.
The boiler will pass 2 gallons out of 8 and that leave one gallon extra in the thump at the end.

Of course absolute 0 alch is un reasonable so you stop any where along the way Usually when you reach 40% abv condensate product

Edit:

I really F'd up the math on this but the idea is there.
Just change my incorrect gallon percentages, and it's there

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:14

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Do the 'oldtimers' say anything about Flavour difference with/without a Thumper ?

Or, for example, the duration/presence of the 'heads' and 'tails' ?

I love the term 'slobber box'.

Definitely need one of those at times.

The other advantage of a thumper is you can add ANYTHING you want.

The main use is to raise ABV but if you add say orange juice it will carry over the orange flavor into the hootch

If you add HI abv it in turn goes higher out. same for lower or water. Some fellas use them to clean, and temper the product meaning to lower the proof to normal drinking levels.

Fore's, heads, and tails all remain the same. What is in the mash, has to come out.

The reason they were invented/ created was to increase the ABV, and profit. Higher proof brings more $$$.

Flip side is flavored liquor brings even more. People love that Apple Pie Moonshine, and that's only 80 proof, and run thru apples, water, cinnamon in the thump

It's almost as cool as chemistry.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 11:15

No, it's incorrect.

A very narrow window of pixie dust. You're already forming a defence and I haven't even put an apparatus together yet.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 11:17

Ok, I've now modeled a thumper as a traditional 2 stage distillation column with two feeds, both 5 wt.% alcohol and equal flows. The top feed is temperature was manually varied until it equaled the temperature of the liquid coming out of the condenser. The condenser is a total condenser, and cools so that all vapour is condensed just just, i.e. the vapour is saturated liquid at it's bubble point. Now in the program, I set my reflux equal to zero... because that second feed becomes my reflux. I want to compare this to a similar column running in the normal way and a combined but single feed.

The boilup ratio for my column was arbitrarily chosen as 2 for this simulation, attached is the screen shot from the program of how it's 'wired' my column. That reflux line is fictitious because I have set the model to a reflux ratio of zero.

thumber column.JPG - 15kB

The mass fraction of ethanol in the distillate for this column is simulated to be 8% under this mode of operation.

Now to combine feeds and employ a boilup ratio of 2...

EDIT: Corrected reflux ratio equal to zero to just reflux equal to zero of course and also correct the bottom to read boil up ratio, not reflux! sorry about the mixup

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by deltaH]

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 11:22

What is the concentration of the liquid added to the thumper and what is done with it afterwards?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:24

No, it's incorrect.

A very narrow window of pixie dust. You're already forming a defence and I haven't even put an apparatus together yet.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Actually I mentioned that many posts ago when I stated this may work in all simple distillations as long as the separate boiling points are within a certain range of each other ie

EtOH / water)

It's all good.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 11:25

Delta:

Beautiful. Has nothing to do with thumpers though.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 11:26

Okay, now for the simulation where I combine the two feeds and feed the boiler. I now set the reflux ratio to 2 (because I no longer have a second feed to use as reflux). The diagram is:

Normal column with combined feed.JPG - 14kB

Normal column with combined feed.JPG - 14kB

The mass fraction of ethanol in the overhead is now 14%... much higher than the 'thumper' version as expected... like you said, there's a reason industry does it this way, BUT that doesn't mean that a thumper isn't perhaps an easy way to deploy a partial second stage at least.

Is everyone now satisfied?

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 11:27

Delta:

Beautiful. Has nothing to do with thumpers though.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:30

What is the concentration of the liquid added to the thumper and what is done with it afterwards?

The contents of both pots are exactly the same in the beginning, and very close to the same at the end, depending on when you stop.

Some guys save the spent charges as "Lee's". It still contains flavor compounds, and small amounts of alch.
Rum makers, and multi generation Bourbon, and Rye guys like the extra flavor profile.
By multi Gen, I mean re-cycling the left overs many times. Usually 7 turns is the limit, and it gets WAY too acidic to keep using.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:41

Okay, now for the simulation where I combine the two feeds and feed the boiler. I now set the reflux ratio to 2 (because I no longer have a second feed to use as reflux). The diagram is:

The mass fraction of ethanol in the overhead is now 14%... much higher than the 'thumper' version as expected... like you said, there's a reason industry does it this way, BUT that doesn't mean that a thumper isn't perhaps an easy way to deploy a partial second stage at least.

Is everyone now satisfied?

I'm sure we all appreciate you taking the time for running this. It is a great first step in proving this concept out.

I do expect the real world effort to result in a slightly better or higher end result due to the temp curve following precisely with the mole fractions.

Thank you!

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 11:44

So basically it starts out at feed strength, ends up appr the same with a little more volume and nothing is returned to the still (I could kill for some actual numbers here, not vague hints)? Then where does all the extra water go? Sorry, but you're just digging your hole deeper.

Delta: If I understand Zombie correctly your sims are barking up the wrong three. Take the initial setup, replace the mixer with a cooler and set a negative heat duty (partial condensing). Now look at the second flasher, it will have two streams, one higher than the inlet of the first condenser, one lower.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 11:52

So basically it starts out at feed strength, ends up appr the same with a little more volume and nothing is returned to the still (I could kill for some actual numbers here, not vague hints)? Then where does all the extra water go? Sorry, but you're just digging your hole deeper.

Delta: If I understand Zombie correctly your sims are barking up the wrong three. Take the initial setup, replace the mixer with a cooler and set a negative heat duty (partial condensing). Now look at the second flasher, it will have two streams, one higher than the inlet of the first condenser, one lower.

Starts at feed %, correct. In the end Both pots wind up at or near the same strength as EACH OTHER. 2-3% ABV.

The Alch from the thump is replaced with water from the boiler. So the boiler will contain less liquid than it started with but the thumper will have slightly more.

Changing to a pratial condenser may not work in the sim, the same as it does in real life. Reason is the thump is constantly widening the margin between the alch vapor point, and the rising input temp.

It begins as a reflux condenser increasing ABV thru vapor liquid interaction, and gradually converts into a boiler.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 11:57

My pleasure zombie. I must say I was surprised by the outcome

Again, the values will not mirror real life because the real life operating point will be quite different, but I hoped this captured the principle.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 16-2-2015 at 12:13

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

Is a thumper not a second distillation stage that will concentrate it further?

Etaoin, you come very late to this discussion (no criticism intended). I'm loathe to have to repeat all the arguments already made against thumpers.

I read the thread before I asked, wasn't asking for repetition. Every single one of "all the arguments" relies on dismissing or ignoring the idea that a thumper could work as a second distillation stage, with no great reason yet as to why.

From what I can see, a thumper would condense vapors coming off the still, that then redistill thanks to introduced heat, instead of just letting all the vapor come off the still at high temperature and be collected. Sounds not completely unreasonable to me, if highly inefficient.

I'm just asking, is this "how" it's supposed to work, or is there other voodoo meant to be going on? I don't do any homebrewing myself, nor fancy distillations, so the lore is novel to me. (Everyone seems to have their own ideas here, so I suppose I shouldn't expect any kind of answer at all.)

'You didn't get my results because you didn't do it properly'. The type of criticism already anticipated higher up.

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.)

[Edited on 2-16-2015 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 12:15

You still seem unable to grasp the concept of mass flow. The only way this can work is by the thumper producing two streams (increased volume represents a stream), one more concentrated than the vapor coming off the boiler and one less concentrated (but still more concentrated than the mash). Best case you're not getting any improvement, worst case you're sacrificing product in order to get more separation. That's fine, but don't claim that it's for free.

I've attached a sim that shows this. Claiming that this device somehow defies simulations is a telltale sign of bovine rear droppings, if it works we can simulate it.

BTW: Unless some liquid is returned to the boiler no reflux can occur (that's basically the definition of reflux).

Attachment: Thumper COFE simulation, revised by Fulmen.fsd (71kB)
This file has been downloaded 701 times

[Edited on 16-2-15 by Fulmen]

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 12:18

As regards our experiments simulating thumpers, it will proceed in three phases.

Firstly, the general experimental set up will be revealed.

Secondly, Zomb will have his chance to advise on operating conditions.

Thirdly, my colleague will carry out the experiments with measurements of EtOH content during each run and will publish these results here.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 16-2-2015 at 12:20

I will be watching with great interest, hope things go forward.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 12:25

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

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.

The experiment we have in mind is so simple and elegant that any honest opposition could replicate it easily.

If our findings contradict what me and Fulmen believe then these results will be most welcome and a great surprise to me. Live, learn and move on.

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).

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 12:26

Reflux and reflux ratio are two different things. Reflux is the liquid coming down, it can have it's origin from the condenser, in which case you need to operate with a certain reflux ratio OR you can feed a liquid stream to the top of a column to act as 'reflux', it just needs liquid trickling down. It works best when this liquid trickling down is at the highest concentration, but it can also work partially when this is feed and this is why I think a thumper manages to raise the concentration some more (but not as much as a normal second stage or second distillation would).

I see it as a lazy way to get some improvement without the effort of distilling twice or setting up multiple stages with reflux from part of the condenser product.

Fulmen, you are correct, it does reduce recovery, never claimed it wouldn't, I merely showed that it does increase conc. according to my model.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by deltaH]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 12:30

If you have to break down the definition "Reflux is the interaction between vapor, and liquid that strips vapor, of the more volatile compound from the liquid.

I promise you ONE thing.
When the light bulb moment occurs, and it will, you're going to realize just how simple this process is.

It took me a month of looking at a sieve plate to finally understand how they could ever work in a stacked column.

It's not as complex as you now believe. .

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 12:42

Guys, please, I really am not trying to take sides, I simply constructed a model that I believed approximated the issue at play here, but in a steady state equivalent. This is not my invention, I have no emotional attachment to it one way or the other, whatsoever, in fact, I don't even like distillation that much, simply trying to help with some calculated numbers :mad:

Remember a model is just a model, it is meant to approximate reality, but it could also be completely wrong. Experimental evidence is always king.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 12:51

DeltaH: Your "reflux" isn't reflux, it's feed. Feed can be introduced anywhere between boiler and condenser, the optimum injection point is determined by it's composition and q-value. Reflux should be interpreted as a stream (flux) returning to it's origin.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flux: 6: the rate of transfer of fluid, particles, or energy across a given surface
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reflux: to cause to flow back or return; especially : to heat such that the vapors formed condense and return to be heated again

I'm not picking a fight with you, using simulations was a good idea. But simulations are quite tricky, if you don't get your conditions right you won't get any sensible data out of it. Please look at my revision and see if that matches Zombies description.

Zombie: Reality is going to hit you like a ton of bricks. I'm sorry, but there is no nice way of saying this.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 12:56

BTW, I don't see the point of a thumper though, because you can drink less at higher conc. or drink more at lower conc. with the one stage only, still similar drunkenness achieved, no? Maybe even a little less with the thumper because there is always efficiency.

The only real winner is employing two stages proper because then you can get both higher conc. AND recovery and so more net drunk?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:00

As regards our experiments simulating thumpers, it will proceed in three phases.

Firstly, the general experimental set up will be revealed.

Secondly, Zomb will have his chance to advise on operating conditions.

Thirdly, my colleague will carry out the experiments with measurements of EtOH content during each run and will publish these results here.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

This is very generous of you. Both you and your colleague.
This has also been a very interesting, and unusual day.
I cancelled two jobs to stick with this thread.

Whatever the results show, thank you.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:05

Reflux and reflux ratio are two different things. Reflux is the liquid coming down, it can have it's origin from the condenser, in which case you need to operate with a certain reflux ratio OR you can feed a liquid stream to the top of a column to act as 'reflux', it just needs liquid trickling down. It works best when this liquid trickling down is at the highest concentration, but it can also work partially when this is feed and this is why I think a thumper manages to raise the concentration some more (but not as much as a normal second stage or second distillation would).

I see it as a lazy way to get some improvement without the effort of distilling twice or setting up multiple stages with reflux from part of the condenser product.

Fulmen, you are correct, it does reduce recovery, never claimed it wouldn't, I merely showed that it does increase conc. according to my model.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by deltaH]

Delta, You nailed it on the head when you said , the lazy way of increasing...

We are talking about uneducated mountain folk that came up with the concept. Not to shabby fer no skoolin"

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:11

BTW, I don't see the point of a thumper though, because you can drink less at higher conc. or drink more at lower conc. with the one stage only, still similar drunkenness achieved, no? Maybe even a little less with the thumper because there is always efficiency.

The only real winner is employing two stages proper because then you can get both higher conc. AND recovery and so more net drunk?

More net $$$$$'s
The higher the proof, the higher the price.
These people were not, are not making hootch for granny or the liquor cabinet.
They are moonshiners, making money off of corn, and sugar.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 13:11

Zombie: Reality is going to hit you like a ton of bricks. I'm sorry, but there is no nice way of saying this.

I doubt it. Never ever having substantiated his theory with any measurements the belief is very strong. It would move mountains if that was possible.

As perhaps a rather weak argument I've seen some distillers and their thumpers at work and the idea that this thing could significantly increase EtOH content is too risible too entertain.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 13:13

Fulmen, really not hung up about what to call it, you are correct, it is feed. Just saying that instead of the usual reflux from a condenser, you can use feed as downcomer liquid and nothing from the condenser. I've modeled it as I've understood the problem to be. The files are provided so you guys can chop and change it as you wish. You are right, depending on what you set up your model to be, you can prove anything.

Magpie - 16-2-2015 at 13:15

Wow, 7 pages of posts! I went on a field trip this morning and just got back.

999,999 moonshiners can't be wrong!

But if they would have been really clever they would have ditched the thumper and added a packed column on top of the still as do the modern craft distillers. My local craft distiller has a 3 plate fractionator using bubble plates.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 13:18

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]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:19

Quote: Mr. Fulmen, from your linked defination

": to heat such that the vapors formed condense and return to be heated again "

Mr. Fulmen. Please, I hope you realize I mean NO disrespect at all. I have the utmost respect for everyone that has shared their time in this.
I also am in NO way attempting to make any one look silly ('Cept me).

I only posted this to point out the definition does indeed apply.

Since both you, and Mr. BlogFast are working on this In Tandem, I am honored to help.

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.

Like I said. It's a privilege to work with you on this, and thank you again.

Let me know when you need my input.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 13:22

Wow, 7 pages of posts! I went on a field trip this morning and just got back.

999,999 moonshiners can't be wrong!

Exactly and that is the real point, it possibly works somewhat, but there are so many better ways...

That said, I CANNOT BELIEVE NOBODY commented on my "cookie thumper" clip :mad:

Did anybody even watch it? Make love, not war guys

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 13:23

We are talking about uneducated mountain folk that came up with the concept. Not to shabby fer no skoolin"

This remains your big problem, of course: that none of them have ever made an honest comparison or evaluation of their thumpers. No data whatsoever.

Your claims can be made by anyone.

I've some knock off anti-elephant powder, if you like. Works a treat: no elephants in our street whatsoever. It's so good the entire neighbourhood uses it!

Dr.Bob - 16-2-2015 at 13:24

If something so simple as a 'thumper' worked, oil refineries would be full of them.

Since oil refineries are separaing a very complex mixture, not separating a simple binary mixture, and an ethanol still is, they are two completely different problems to solve. Refineries take cuts at numerous BPs, so as to separate many fractions from crude oil. I don't think that is point is relevant what so ever.

I have never said that a thumper is a good idea, or efficient; simply that without examining the way it is built and runs in detail, I cannot discount its possible utility, any more than I can claim that a certain reflux column will not work better than another without lots more information and or real testing.

Having actually used complex distillation equipment in the past, and having seen real life distillations of chemicals including ethanol does at least give the credibility of experience to my claims. It's not like anyone is claiming that it produces excess energy and neutrons, it is just a variation on a reflux apparatus from what I can see.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:26

Wow, 7 pages of posts! I went on a field trip this morning and just got back.

999,999 moonshiners can't be wrong!

Oh we have columns. Most of us hand build every single piece.

It's just the romance of a pot still, and the real fact is... Nothing can make a more flavorful Whiskey than a 50 year old copper still, and grain you grew yourself.

You went on a field trip, and I've got a sore back end from sitting right here ALL night, and day.
What a deal.

deltaH - 16-2-2015 at 13:26

Okay, then we are in agreement.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 13:31

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.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:32

Quote: Fulmen

What I have tried to explain is that it can't increase concentration "for free"

NO BACK PEDDLING!!!

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.

The statement of FREE comes in at the point where the entire system is hot, and begins running, you are using the EXACT same power as you would running a single pot. SO THEREFORE the boiler is running on the Magic Plus (+) that I stated in the first post.

As long as we are on the same page here.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 13:33

Quote: Originally posted by Dr.Bob

[[...] is just a variation on a reflux apparatus from what I can see.

Where's the part that's sent back into the column, Dr.Bob?

That's reflux, Sir. Thumpers don't do that.

If columns could be shortened by using a simple thumper system with the same enrichment, plenty of different distillation set ups would use it. That's common sense.

You do realise that some people call them 'doublers', right? Because allegedly they double the EtOH output!

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:33

Wow, 7 pages of posts! I went on a field trip this morning and just got back.

999,999 moonshiners can't be wrong!

Exactly and that is the real point, it possibly works somewhat, but there are so many better ways...

That said, I CANNOT BELIEVE NOBODY commented on my "cookie thumper" clip :mad:

Did anybody even watch it? Make love, not war guys

Too busy typing... fingers bleeding... need coffee...

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:36

We are talking about uneducated mountain folk that came up with the concept. Not to shabby fer no skoolin"

No actually you are incorrect.

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.

This aint my first rodeo cowboy.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 13:37

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.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 13:39

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 - 16-2-2015 at 13:46

[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 - 16-2-2015 at 13:47

Zombie: No offense taken (although I'm about ready to visit you and beat you senseless with a book

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.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 13:55

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 :cool:

On a side note, all forums need a proper fight every now and then. This has been a good one so far.

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 13:59

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.

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>>>

aga - 16-2-2015 at 14:00

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 - 16-2-2015 at 14:01

999,999 moonshiners can't be wrong!

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 - 16-2-2015 at 14:02

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.

Loptr - 16-2-2015 at 14:02

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 - 16-2-2015 at 14:03

[No insulation of any kind. but no setting the thumper on a marble slab either. Real world model...

Plain or patterned toilet paper on the premise's WC?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 14:10

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.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 14:11

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 - 16-2-2015 at 14:14

Quote: Originally posted 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.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 14:17

I didn't understand the last bit.

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.

Fulmen - 16-2-2015 at 14:19

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...

aga - 16-2-2015 at 14:24

The Second Law tells us PMMs cannot work. We don't need to prove the Second Law again.

PMMs are easy - just need a Perpetual Energy source !

morganbw - 16-2-2015 at 14:29

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 - 16-2-2015 at 14:34

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 - 16-2-2015 at 14:39

Quote: Originally posted by morganbw

It does not change the laws but, it disallows me/you to see how it could fit into some odd areas.

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 - 16-2-2015 at 16:09

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]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 16-2-2015 at 16:56

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu

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.