| Pages:
1
..
27
28
29
30 |
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Dan P.  | [...] and even then you seem yourselves to be coming to the embarrasing conclusion that you have got the wrong end of the stick!
Thumpers and their efficacy are utterly straightforward, child's play, and it only took you 28 pages to work it out.
"Pleeease leeeeave!!"
|
No, Dan. We wanted experimental confirmation of that. Some numbers. Controlled conditions. Simple really. Keep turning what we did into something it
wasn't, if that suits you.
Of the 28 pages probably less than 5 are worth reading but that's how these forums work, with everyone and their 'two cents' wanting to contribute.
It's no different over at HD, as I'm sure you're aware.
Thanks for your side of things.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Shame really.
He was the first Real distiller in here.
Ah well.
Some people prefer Magic over Science (quite a lot of people actually, and not just in Africa).
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Shame really.
He was the first Real distiller in here.
Ah well.
Some people prefer Magic over Science (quite a lot of people actually, and not just in Africa). |
I'd say the Only Real one. 
I'll try and contact him tomorrow. We emailed a bit about politics. It's strange he's been AWOL for about 2 months now, if not longer.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Boats and identity crises and such.
Note to SM mods:
"troll be gone!and tater waves his magic thumper over post and troll poster is gone."
Excellent work by HD Moderator Tater.
This also works.
18 users online of which 4 are just spiders.
Lowest i saw was just me and the Baidur spider (cos of timezones)
[Edited on 18-8-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
@bloggers : i was referring to Dan P as the first Real Distiller.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
I was contacted today by a HD member who said this :-
| Quote: | my theory on thumpers is.
First we have to know this.
The boiling point of water is 212 and the boiling point of alcohol is 173.
Wash will not boil at 212 or 173. It will boil at some point/temperature in between. Changing as the alcohols with the lower boiling point evaporates.
Here’s a graph http://homedistiller.org/forum/download/file.php?id=5243&... to illustrate the theory.
Now a chart of the boiling points of alcohols as there will be more than just our favourite ethanol in there. They will be present in the wash
depending on yeast health and many other factors. http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a8f0de534db4e6d3f7a2c06... (rather irrelevant but heh)
A 10% abv charge in a boiler that out puts an average of 50% vapour. [lets say this boils at 192.5]
Remembering that the first out put will be far higher...
We have a 50% abv charged thumper.
As the higher abv vapour comes in to the thumper its going to condense and mix increasing the abv in the thumper.
Let’s say now for arguments sake that thumper is containing a hypothetical 75% in the thumper at this point although it will drop over the course of
the run/experiment.
This 75% abv charge will have a lower boiling point in theory than the 50% abv. (lets say this boils at182.75)
As this heats up due to the steam injection from the boiler the boiling point is going to be closer to that of alcohol the 173 than the water 212.
Vaporising more alcohol than water thus you will see a higher abv out put than if you had only used the boiler.
This is just one man's interpretation of what’s going on But to me it hard to fault.
|
Personally i thank and salute the HD member for offering the information, despite the wealth of ill-feeling caused by my lack of sensitivity when i
posted on their forum.
This part is Vital i feel :-
| Quote: | | as there will be more than just our favourite ethanol in there |
The phase diagram for ethanol/water dictates what the max ethanol content will be based on there being just ethanol and
water in the mix.
Adding in a third, fourth, fifth etc component may well shift the equlibrium to a point where you can actually reach a higher (than
water/ethanol azeotropic) concentration in the distillate.
Given that a Thumper has been proven to increase the ABV in distillation, it might be true that given the right Mix, it can also be used to break
azeotropes.
If that proves to be true as well (Zombie already claimed as much) then the mechanisms behind it could be of great use in other applications.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
aga:
Three simple points.
1. The member's 'theory' is no different from most other 'theories' that have been presented above in the thread. It's quite easy to drill holes in it
and it certainly doesn't provide a full quantitative description of what goes on. I've tried to model this theoretically myself and failed.
2. The 'wealth of ill-feeling' didn't come from your 'lack of sensitivity'. What do you have to do there anyway to be accepted, grovel? Pray
to the yeast G-ds? No, those who didn't like your post were of the 'we
don't need you here to tell us anything about thumpers, cowboy!' variety.
3. Your point about other components and EtOH azeotrope breaking may sound 'sciency' but it's hardly science as such. Speculation, no more.
Zombie also attributed his alleged azeotrope breaking only to the power of his design, and nothing else.
[Edited on 22-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Facts :-
#1 Claims made saying Thumpers increase ABV in distillation.
#1 Proven to be True.
#2 Claim made that the Ethanol/water Azeotrope can be broken.
#2 Untested.
The Thumper arrangement per se is possibly irrelevant.
Breaking an azeotrope using traces of some organics sounds a bit like a DES in reverse.
One way to find out ...
Edit:
What do we have to do to test it ?
Bash the maths like crazy same as we did for the basic Thumper assertion, or just give it a go and see what happens, take some measurements then get
all mathsy afterwards ?
Oh ! There were no maths before the original experiments were done.
The charts n graphs came after ...
[Edited on 22-8-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Breaking azeotropes with a third component is well known practice in OC. I hope I don't have to point out the obvious drawback of this method?
Additional difficulty in future experimentation with the EtOH/water azeotrope (already discussed): accuracy of measurement. At 95.63 w% EtOH, you need
a much better measuring method than your refractometer. Smallish measuring errors could send you off on a wild goose chase, possibly w/o even
realising it!
[Edited on 22-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ah.
'shiners actually Want those extra components in the distillate for taste etc.
DOH !
Edit:
But then again ...
If you could modify the azeotrope with a third component that was easily removed post-distillation ...
[Edited on 22-8-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
I've been spending some time catching up on this thread, and while I find it quite interesting, particularly as I'm planning on doing some fractional
distillations of various alcohols at some point, I don't see any reason for this enmity between SM and HD.
Clearly, both forums have their pride, and a certain level of groupthink has developed on either side which has led to members on both forums becoming offended by the customs and mannerisms of the other that
are taken for granted. We're supposed to be an open and welcoming community here to anyone who wants to actually contribute to the discussion. I see
no reason for Dan P. to be chased off. We are not some exclusive group of elitist scientists and god forbid this place ever becomes that. He
has contributed decent information to this thread based on his first-hand experience. Even if it does not directly use the scientific method, it
shouldn't be immediately discounted. I think it was premature for aga to go to HD and immediately proclaim that the small amount of scientific data
that has been gathered here is set-in-stone fact. The only data we have right now is Crowfjord's experiment. Since when was doing a single experiment
and making a conclusion based solely on its results considered to be proper use of the scientific method? Plenty more repetitions and variations of
the experiment are needed before any conclusions are drawn. It may seem tedious, but that's the way it works. Put your money where your mouth
is and start really experimenting, blogfast. (Don't worry, I will too, I'm no hypocrite!)
I think if we can bury the hatchet, we may be able to find some common ground. We need to do some real science rather than bickering about what seems
plausible or not and who knows better, and we'll all be able to learn something from this.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga |
If you could modify the azeotrope with a third component that was easily removed post-distillation ...
[Edited on 22-8-2015 by aga] |
There IS a second component of the aeotrope that can be easily removed and it's called... water! Something like CaO will remove the
remaining 5 w% of water [in the azeotrope] quite easily. A single stage follow-up distillation will then yield the pure EtOH. This is, among other
drying methods, how it's done for 100 % bio-ethanol (although for most uses like fuel the 5 % water can be left there)
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zts16 | I see no reason for Dan P. to be chased off. We are not some exclusive group of elitist scientists and god forbid this place ever becomes
that.
The only data we have right now is Crowfjord's experiment. Since when was doing a single experiment and making a conclusion based solely on its
results considered to be proper use of the scientific method? Plenty more repetitions and variations of the experiment are needed before any
conclusions are drawn. It may seem tedious, but that's the way it works.
Put your money where your mouth is and start really experimenting, blogfast. |
Firstly, Dan P. was advised that fruitful discussion here was unlikely because of the 'incident'. Dan P. hasn't been banned here. But aga was over
there. Did you actually read aga's thread [at HD] and the reaction it got?
Secondly, it was aga and me who conducted the first meaningful thumper experiment here. Much to his credit aga did the heavy lifting because I was ill
at the time (still am not a 100 %). Crowfjord's experiment confirmed our results. So it's not a single run but at least two. With such meaningful
differences in EtOH enrichment (thumper v. no thumper) as we (aga/me and Crowfjord) obtained, no one would seriously claim they weren't significant.
Sure, more experimentation would be most welcome, yours or anyone's. Just make sure it doesn't meet with Dan P.'s 'pffft, we already know all
that!'
[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Yes, I read aga's thread, and while the way that he was received there surely wasn't acceptable, he did come across as a little bit presumptuous, and
it certainly doesn't justify reacting the same way to one of their people coming over here.
I went over most of this thread, but somehow I missed aga's experiment. I apologize for that. Despite that, I still don't think that two experiments
is enough to claim that a conclusion is a scientific fact.
[Edited on 8-23-2015 by zts16]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zts16 | Yes, I read aga's thread, and while the way that he was received there surely wasn't acceptable, he did come across as a little bit presumptuous, and
it certainly doesn't justify reacting the same way to one of their people coming over here.
I went over most of this thread, but somehow I missed aga's experiment. I apologize for that. Despite that, I still don't think that two experiments
is enough to claim that a conclusion is a scientific fact.
[Edited on 8-23-2015 by zts16] |
Well then: did we react the same way to one of their people coming over here? I don't think so at all. I maintain though that even if there
was some dialogue between 'them' and 'us' it would yield little: the approaches, methods and objectives are too different.
Scientific fact? Depends a bit on how you define that. We're making quite modest and specific claims: that starting with empty thumpers leads to
distillates of significantly higher EtOH contents, compared to identical set ups with no thumpers at all.
We're not claiming to have developed a predictive quantitative model, quite the opposite. In my opinion, any future experiments should be
aimed at a better understanding of what precisely is happening. Measuring EtOH content of the thumper liquid, just prior to when distillate starts
coming over, would be an interesting metric that could throw some light on the how and why of the observed extra EtOH enrichment.
[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Crowfjord
Hazard to Others
Posts: 390
Registered: 20-1-2013
Location: Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ever so slowly crystallizing...
|
|
Here is some more information from my last experiments with thumper distillation that I didn't include in the initial write-up:
Once distillation began (liquid flowing from condenser), the thumper liquid appeared to be boiling from the heat of the copper tube which descended to
the bottom of the thumper, in addition to the injected vapor. In trials with "wash" preloaded into the thumper, the vapor bubbles would at first
shrink and disappear as they assumably condensed/dissolved in the cooler liquid. As liquid condensed and the thumper grew hotter, the injected vapor
bubbles became larger and longer lived until the thumper was hot enough for distillation to take place. At this point the bubbles just travelled from
the end of the tube to the surface of the liquid, without visibly diminishing in size.
In measuring the ethanol concentration in the thumper, the first sample was taken just as distillation began. In the last run, with the thumper
starting with 250 mL of "wash," I also took a measurement roughly halfway between turning on the heat and when distillation began. The concentration
was 16 % ethanol (w/w) and about 120 mL had collected in the thumper. Samples aside from the first of each run were taken when roughly 2.5 mL of
distillate had been collected of the 5 mL fraction.
[Edited on 23-8-2015 by Crowfjord]
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
blogfast, you didn't have any right to ask Dan to leave. If they could see that we aren't the bunch of condescending elitist dicks that you're making
us look like, we should be able to converse civilly. I find this to be an interesting opportunity for some inter-forum collaboration if some of them
are open to it. Even though it wasn't right of them to treat aga the way they did, the way that you keep talking down about them, calling them
cretins, etc, even before the incident with aga, is unsolicited.
And I said scientific fact because that is the language that aga was using in the thread on HD. To me that appeared to be rather presumptuous, since
he could have just as easily linked to this thread and explained a bit of the actual research, rather than trying to force it down their throats and
expecting them to accept it. That isn't how science works.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
To be fair, there were rather a lot more than 2 experiments.
The data derived from a whole series of experiments are behind blogfast25s' graph.
4 experiments were done before even starting to accurately measure the EtOH concentrations and it took several more experiments to even make the
Thumper work at all.
My attitude upset them, and i appologised.
Since then some posts in that thread were removed/edited, effectively re-writing history to better suit whoever edited them.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Says who? Of course I have that right. I didn't call for banning, I merely explained that any attempted 'dialogue' would be a conversation between the
deaf. That's my opinion and I stand by it, also going by the small sample of 'interaction' we did get.
He's not banned. If he wants to put in another two cents here, he can and no one can stop him.
| Quote: Originally posted by zts16 | | To me that appeared to be rather presumptuous, since he could have just as easily linked to this thread and explained a bit of the actual research,
rather than trying to force it down their throats and expecting them to accept it. That isn't how science works. |
Yawn. Science doesn't rely on sugar coating, politesse or civility either. The truth is what it is, no matter how it's presented. Had over at HD some
had been less judgmental re. aga's 'attitude' and maybe looked at the data itself, they might have liked what they saw. Instead they shot the
messenger.
[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Crowfjord |
In measuring the ethanol concentration in the thumper, the first sample was taken just as distillation began. In the last run, with the thumper
starting with 250 mL of "wash," I also took a measurement roughly halfway between turning on the heat and when distillation began. The concentration
was 16 % ethanol (w/w) and about 120 mL had collected in the thumper. Samples aside from the first of each run were taken when roughly 2.5 mL of
distillate had been collected of the 5 mL fraction.
|
Strange. From the VLE diagram I deduced that an EtOH 10 w% in the boiler the fraction that comes over should be about 40 w%.
In aga/mine experiment, without thumper he was getting 60 - 50 w% EtOH. As both set ups were identical that would also have been the composition
entering (and condensing in) the thumper. It gets slowly diluted as EtOH w& tails off slowly:
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=61566&...
[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Another question that bugs me about the thermodynamics of thumpers is the following.
When the thumper is starting to yield distillate, it's temperature must be close to the BP of the liquid in it. Now we have the following heat
balance:
Heat<sub>in</sub> = Heat<sub>out</sub> + Heat<sub>loss</sub>.
Heat<sub>in</sub> is of course the enthalpy carried by the vapours coming out of the 'pot' and into the thumper.
Heat<sub>out</sub> is the enthalpy carried by the vapours coming out of the thumper and into the distillate collector.
Heat<sub>loss</sub> is due to the thumper not being insulated. Being at higher temperatures than its surroundings, it loses heat. I wonder
how and how much this would affect distillate EtOH w%. Would insulating a thumper help or hinder?
[Edited on 23-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Crowfjord
Hazard to Others
Posts: 390
Registered: 20-1-2013
Location: Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ever so slowly crystallizing...
|
|
Although I attempted to thermally isolate the thumper from the hot plate with ceramic insulation, some heat still made it through. I think that in my
case, at least, heat from the hot plate may have compensated for or possibly even overcame any heat loss from the thumper.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Stuff at a Higher Pressure boils at a Higher Temperature right ?
Once the thumper starts to fill (the input pipe gets covered) the pressure in the boiling pot should increase ever so slightly = higher temperature
vapours leaving it and entering the thumper.
More liquid in the thumper and/or it's Height above the boiling pot should influence that extra pressure/higher temperature vapour.
Can anyone with a brain work out the pressure difference per metre starting at sea level, and the change in the boiling point of water that pressure
difference would cause ?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hydrostatic pressure at depth h in a liquid is given by:
p = p<sub>0</sub> + dgh
With p<sub>0</sub> atmospheric pressure and d the density of the liquid. For say 10
cm (0.1 m) depth in water:
p = 101,325 + 1000.0 x 9.8 x 0.1= 102,305 Pa.
That's barely 1 % higher than atmospheric pressure. The effect of such small pressure increases on BP is in the order of magnitude of about 1 celsius.
[Edited on 24-8-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thankyou for the formula.
Will write that down and keep it.
So ... if the thumper were say 2m above the boiling pot, and Large, e.g. 0.5m tall, when it fills sufficiently to cover the output pipe of the boiling
pot, the temperature of the vapours should increase by a few degrees, as the pot is slightly pressurised.
Also, the density of the pot liquid is changing (getting denser) as the EtOH vapours are leaving, which may have some significance.
[Edited on 24-8-2015 by aga]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
27
28
29
30 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
