| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
30 |
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by deltaH  | | 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
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
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
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by deltaH |
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
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
|
|
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?
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 deltaH | | 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.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
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 deltaH | | 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. |
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 .
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
|
|
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
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 | 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]
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
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 | 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.
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 Zombie | 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 . |
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
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
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.
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
What is the concentration of the liquid added to the thumper and what is done with it afterwards?
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 blogfast25 | | Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | 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 . |
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.
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
|
|
Delta:
Beautiful. Has nothing to do with thumpers though.
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
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?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Delta:
Beautiful. Has nothing to do with thumpers though.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
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.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
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 deltaH | 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]
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
|
|
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.
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 | 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.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie | | Quote: Originally posted by deltaH | 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] |
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
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 |
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.)
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1698
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
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 659 times
[Edited on 16-2-15 by Fulmen]
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
|
|
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]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
4
5
6
7
8
..
30 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
