Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SV: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish

Expand Messages
  • Johan
    ... Från: smudge311065 [mailto:smudge@bigpond.net.au] Skickat: den 1 april 2003 06:38 Till: Distillers@yahoogroups.com Ämne: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
      Från: smudge311065 [mailto:smudge@...]
      Skickat: den 1 april 2003 06:38
      Till: Distillers@yahoogroups.com
      Ämne: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish

      Hi Charlie,

      I'm damn sure I can control the output purity of my still by setting
      the output temperature - when I run my still I sit and watch it
      happen. It bothers me that people in this newsgroup have told me this
      is not physically possible.


      >-
      I doubt that anyone have said that. But if you say so..
      But it's not the direct effect of cooling down of vapour that will make the
      alcohol stronger. It is the condensed vapour from the cooling process that
      then boil again that makes it stronger.

      The evaporation from the liquid is the only way to make it stronger.
      In your still, with packing or not, it is STILL this processes going on.

      If you cool down vapour all that will happen is that some of the vapour
      condense, nothing changes with the remaining vapour.

      Of course you can regulate the reflux and thereby the purity with the help
      of a temperature controller, it has to be accurate though, especially if you
      have the sensor in the top.
      If you put the sensor at the top, your still will run at maximum speed for
      that output you set the temperature on. If your goal is to make pure spirits
      with no off taste then it is a better idea to be on the safe side and run it
      with more reflux so quality is guaranteed. If the temperature is fluctuating
      just a little at the top you won't have pure spirits.

      But there is no NEED to have temperature control if you instead use a valve
      that is adjusted to high reflux right from the beginning.

      If you already get pure spritits with no off taste at all, then don't change
      it if you don't want to.
      But I recommend that you

      1. but packing inside
      2. cool in the top, in your case use internal cooling in the column
      3. insulate the column
      4. move the sensor down from the top to lets say 10-15 cm down from the top
      in the packing.
      Why? Because you gain speed and have better control over purity.

      ---
    • homedistiller
      Well written and well done, Smudge! By the way, I m still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your still a pot still !? Dirk ... setting ... this ... we ...
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Well written and well done, Smudge!

        By the way, I'm still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your
        still a pot still !?

        Dirk


        --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "smudge311065" <smudge@b...> wrote:
        > Hi Charlie,
        >
        > I'm damn sure I can control the output purity of my still by
        setting
        > the output temperature - when I run my still I sit and watch it
        > happen. It bothers me that people in this newsgroup have told me
        this
        > is not physically possible.
        >
        > Last time I checked, science does not dictate to the world how it
        > should behave. Science is just our feeble attempt to explain what
        we
        > see. I have made a few feeble attempts to explain what I see. If
        you
        > don't like them then that's fine - come up with a better one.
        >
        > You might prefer to just tell me I'm making the whole thing up.
        That
        > way you won't need to think about it at all.
        >
        > Consider this an open invitation to anyone in this newsgroup to
        come
        > over an examine my still in operation. If I'm making all this up I
        > will soon be exposed and you can throw me out of the newsgroup.
        >
        >
        > Smudge
      • Mike Nixon
        homedistiller wrote: Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish I m still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your still a pot still !?
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          homedistiller wrote:
          Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish
          I'm still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your still a pot still !?
          =====================================
          I call it a pot still because the column contains no packing and because it is uninsulated, both of which are features that define a reflux still.  Smudge has kindly sent me details of its construction.  The feature that makes it a "better" pot still is that he has devised a way of getting the reflux that condenses on the uninsulated walls away from them by a series of plates that direct the reflux to the centre of the column.  This reduces the amount of cooling and promotes further re-evaporation.  It is a good technique.
           
          You might ask Smudge to publish his design to this Group, and you will see what I mean.  His design, his privilege.
           
          Mike N
           
        • Brandon Lee
          I think the saying goes-- who is the more foolish-- the fool or the one who follows him--i thought this was a group for discussion of ideas-- what does it
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment

            I think the saying goes-- who is the more foolish-- the fool or the one who follows him--i thought this was a group for discussion of ideas-- what does it matter what one's thoughts are-- like my indian grandfather told me long ago--if it works for u leave it alone--what difference does it make whether he has a bumble bee or a space ship-- the bottom line is does it work for that particular individual--i totally agree with Jerry-- one does not have to read these details--personally i find them amusing--

            Give em hell Smudge

            your brother in the spirits

            Blueflame456

             jerrykrautenstabin <thetiminator@...> wrote:

            > It's gone right down since this idiot started screwing it up.
            >
            > Charlie



            Oh, that's real nice. If you don't believe a thing he says then don't
            believe it. Or write him an email telling him so. Your message does
            no good for the rest of the readership. You do have a delete key on
            your computer don't you.   Jerry



            To unsubscribe from this group send an email to  distillers-unsubscribe@onelist.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

          • BOKAKOB
            Nope, his voice is coming form behind in forms of thick stupid far... away from truce. Charles Benson wrote:I have been quietly
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Nope, his voice is coming form behind in forms of thick stupid far... away from truce.

               

               Charles Benson <chas_benson_1@...> wrote:

              I have been quietly lurking for a while and keeping quiet as I know swat
              about distilling. Changing fast tho as most writing in help a lot. Thanks to
              all.  But not for the rantings of this clown called Smudge.  I've bothered
              to contact a couple of friends who are pretty clued up on these things as
              they are chemists, and they both say he's living in a world of his own. 
              That was a relief as I was beginning to think I was getting the hang of it
              all, then along he comes with a heap of stuff that looked smart to me, but
              was turning all I'd learned upside down.  Bloody discouraging that.  Turns
              out that he's talking through the back of his neck, and I feel definitely
              pissed off that I've spent so much time trying to follow what he's been on
              about, only to find out that he's just enjoying a slanging match with
              everyone.  Just thought I'd get off my butt and write in as I hate being fed
              a load of garbage and wasting so much time just because this waste of space
              wants to preen and look smart with his "bumble bee" still and "I win"
              attitude.  You want to kick me off this list for flaming, then fine by me. 
              It's gone right down since this idiot started screwing it up.

              Charlie





              _________________________________________________________________
              The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
              http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



              To unsubscribe from this group send an email to  distillers-unsubscribe@onelist.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              I can be wrong I must say
              Cheers, Alex...
              A



              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

            • BOKAKOB
              remember the saying about one dummy asking questins and a hundred wisemen ? smudge311065 wrote:Hi Charlie, I m damn sure I can control
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment

                remember the saying about one dummy asking questins and a hundred wisemen ?

                 smudge311065 <smudge@...> wrote:

                Hi Charlie,

                I'm damn sure I can control the output purity of my still by setting
                the output temperature - when I run my still I sit and watch it
                happen. It bothers me that people in this newsgroup have told me this
                is not physically possible.

                Last time I checked, science does not dictate to the world how it
                should behave. Science is just our feeble attempt to explain what we
                see. I have made a few feeble attempts to explain what I see. If you
                don't like them then that's fine - come up with a better one.

                You might prefer to just tell me I'm making the whole thing up. That
                way you won't need to think about it at all.

                Consider this an open invitation to anyone in this newsgroup to come
                over an examine my still in operation. If I'm making all this up I
                will soon be exposed and you can throw me out of the newsgroup.


                Smudge





                To unsubscribe from this group send an email to  distillers-unsubscribe@onelist.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                I can be wrong I must say
                Cheers, Alex...
                A



                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

              • Robert N
                Hi Dene, I do not think that an airfare is necessary as both of you live in the same region (correct me if I am wrong) and have churches all around you. Yours
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment

                  Hi Dene, I do not think that an airfare is necessary as both of you live in the same region (correct me if I am wrong) and have churches all around you.

                   

                  Yours in Spirit

                   

                   

                  Robert

                   

                   

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: deno752002 [mailto:waterline@...]
                  Sent
                  :
                  Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:42 PM
                  To:
                  Distillers@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [
                  Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish

                   


                  > Consider this an open invitation to anyone in this newsgroup to come
                  > over an examine my still in operation.

                  Pay for my air fare and I'll be over in a flash for a look.

                  > If I'm making all this up I  will soon be exposed and you can throw
                  > me out of the newsgroup.

                  No...  We're not that democratic.

                  Cheers.

                  Dene



                  To unsubscribe from this group send an email to  distillers-unsubscribe@onelist.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                • Ackland, Tony (CALNZAS)
                  I support Smudge in what he s saying (or my interpretation of it). As i see it, he s simply saying that you can control the purity (determined by the reflux
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I support Smudge in what he's saying (or my interpretation of it).

                    As i see it, he's simply saying that you can control the purity (determined by the reflux ratio & column characteristics), either by
                    a) adjusting the amount of liquid returned back down the column (for a fixed given amount of vapour) via the offtake valve (my style - using the offset/overhead condenser vapour or liquid management approach), or
                    b) adjusting the rate of vapour generation (for a fixed amount of reflux) by controlling the amount of power input to the still.

                    Smudge has chosen (b) because he can automate it, whereas automating (a) is quite a bit trickier.

                    In both cases, we use the temperature at the head of the column as an indicator of the purity there, and it signals us what to do.

                    We just have different ways of explaining / stating it.

                    I believe both approaches work, and work well. Its up to the individual as to if they want to control either the rate of reflux returned, or the rate of vapour generation. Both end up doing the same job - adjusting the RATIO between the two as required later in the run. Depending on how great the ratio is to begin with will determine if you're doing a lot of adjustment, or just a little.

                    my 2c

                    Tony
                  • homedistiller
                    Hi Mike, Smudge did also send his plans to me. His pictures, drawings and information were the primary reason for me to wonder about you defining his still as
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Mike,

                      Smudge did also send his plans to me. His pictures, drawings and
                      information were the primary reason for me to wonder about you
                      defining his still as a pot still.

                      My remarks:

                      1) Packing.
                      Is the use of packing conditional to have a reflux still ?
                      Smudge uses no packing, but so many industrial columns don't use
                      packing, they have trays instead. Smudge's still has a tall and wide
                      column and it has many horizontal plates, placed so, that they
                      function like simple trays. His still does not operate on single
                      stage reflux as a pot still, but does definitely so in several
                      stages.
                      How otherwise could he obtain that purity ?

                      2) Uninsulated
                      Is the use of insulation conditional to speak of a reflux still ?
                      One must create reflux somewhere. With his design, he heats up his
                      room to create reflux, others will heat up the drain with warm water.

                      3) As far as asking Smudge to publish his design to the group: I'm
                      sure you read some of the posts adressed to Smudge. Would you
                      comfortably share ideas with people who prefer to see you in an
                      asylum ?

                      Mike, don't take me wrong about my remarks. For personal use, I would
                      probably modify Smudge's design. I would extend the column to have
                      more stages (less reflux needed), I would insulate it and would
                      create the traditional reflux outside of the column etc.

                      BUT, I appreciate Smudge's ideas about controlling the still with the
                      temperature sensor on top and I very much admire his polite,
                      steadfast and scientific attitude with which he defends his
                      experiments. I have no problems at all with knowledgeable people
                      saying "I win" when they win.

                      Sincerely,
                      Dirk

                      --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Nixon" <mike@s...> wrote:
                      > homedistiller wrote:
                      > Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish
                      >
                      > I'm still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your still a pot
                      still !?
                      > =====================================
                      > I call it a pot still because the column contains no packing and
                      because it is uninsulated, both of which are features that define a
                      reflux still. Smudge has kindly sent me details of its construction.
                      The feature that makes it a "better" pot still is that he has
                      devised a way of getting the reflux that condenses on the uninsulated
                      walls away from them by a series of plates that direct the reflux to
                      the centre of the column. This reduces the amount of cooling and
                      promotes further re-evaporation. It is a good technique.
                      >
                      > You might ask Smudge to publish his design to this Group, and you
                      will see what I mean. His design, his privilege.
                      >
                      > Mike N
                    • nanosleep
                      I didn t realize smudge s still had tray-like devices inside the column. I tend to get glassy eyed when the messages start ranting :P I just assumed the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I didn't realize smudge's still had tray-like devices inside
                        the column. I tend to get glassy eyed when the messages
                        start ranting :P I just assumed the column was empty
                        and the only refining of the alcohol was from
                        condensation/revaporization on the column walls
                        (rather inefficient). What do the plates look like inside
                        the column? I'd be interested in seeing the design.

                        I disagree slightly on the point made about "if it works
                        for you then that's good enough". I have a still that
                        works perfectly well for me, but I want it to work BETTER!
                        I'd be glad to have someone tell me how to make my still
                        better, faster, more efficient, or easier to run. That's
                        how this art gets improved.

                        My 3 cents (inflation)
                        -A

                        --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "homedistiller"
                        <homedistiller@y...> wrote:
                        > Hi Mike,
                        >
                        > Smudge did also send his plans to me. His pictures, drawings and
                        > information were the primary reason for me to wonder about you
                        > defining his still as a pot still.
                        >
                        > My remarks:
                        >
                        > 1) Packing.
                        > Is the use of packing conditional to have a reflux still ?
                        > Smudge uses no packing, but so many industrial columns don't use
                        > packing, they have trays instead. Smudge's still has a tall and
                        wide
                        > column and it has many horizontal plates, placed so, that they
                        > function like simple trays. His still does not operate on single
                        > stage reflux as a pot still, but does definitely so in several
                        > stages.
                        > How otherwise could he obtain that purity ?
                        >
                        > 2) Uninsulated
                        > Is the use of insulation conditional to speak of a reflux still ?
                        > One must create reflux somewhere. With his design, he heats up his
                        > room to create reflux, others will heat up the drain with warm
                        water.
                        >
                        > 3) As far as asking Smudge to publish his design to the group: I'm
                        > sure you read some of the posts adressed to Smudge. Would you
                        > comfortably share ideas with people who prefer to see you in an
                        > asylum ?
                        >
                        > Mike, don't take me wrong about my remarks. For personal use, I
                        would
                        > probably modify Smudge's design. I would extend the column to have
                        > more stages (less reflux needed), I would insulate it and would
                        > create the traditional reflux outside of the column etc.
                        >
                        > BUT, I appreciate Smudge's ideas about controlling the still with
                        the
                        > temperature sensor on top and I very much admire his polite,
                        > steadfast and scientific attitude with which he defends his
                        > experiments. I have no problems at all with knowledgeable people
                        > saying "I win" when they win.
                        >
                        > Sincerely,
                        > Dirk
                        >
                        > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Nixon" <mike@s...> wrote:
                        > > homedistiller wrote:
                        > > Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish
                        > >
                        > > I'm still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your still a pot
                        > still !?
                        > > =====================================
                        > > I call it a pot still because the column contains no packing and
                        > because it is uninsulated, both of which are features that define a
                        > reflux still. Smudge has kindly sent me details of its
                        construction.
                        > The feature that makes it a "better" pot still is that he has
                        > devised a way of getting the reflux that condenses on the
                        uninsulated
                        > walls away from them by a series of plates that direct the reflux to
                        > the centre of the column. This reduces the amount of cooling and
                        > promotes further re-evaporation. It is a good technique.
                        > >
                        > > You might ask Smudge to publish his design to this Group, and you
                        > will see what I mean. His design, his privilege.
                        > >
                        > > Mike N
                      • waljaco
                        Obviously pictures speak better than words! Re: Insulation Commercial stills using plates do not have insulation. Do they compensate by using more power? Wal
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Obviously pictures speak better than words!
                          Re: Insulation
                          Commercial stills using plates do not have insulation. Do they
                          compensate by using more power?
                          Wal

                          --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "nanosleep" <nanosleep@y...> wrote:
                          > I didn't realize smudge's still had tray-like devices inside
                          > the column. I tend to get glassy eyed when the messages
                          > start ranting :P I just assumed the column was empty
                          > and the only refining of the alcohol was from
                          > condensation/revaporization on the column walls
                          > (rather inefficient). What do the plates look like inside
                          > the column? I'd be interested in seeing the design.
                          >
                          > I disagree slightly on the point made about "if it works
                          > for you then that's good enough". I have a still that
                          > works perfectly well for me, but I want it to work BETTER!
                          > I'd be glad to have someone tell me how to make my still
                          > better, faster, more efficient, or easier to run. That's
                          > how this art gets improved.
                          >
                          > My 3 cents (inflation)
                          > -A
                          >
                          > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "homedistiller"
                          > <homedistiller@y...> wrote:
                          > > Hi Mike,
                          > >
                          > > Smudge did also send his plans to me. His pictures, drawings and
                          > > information were the primary reason for me to wonder about you
                          > > defining his still as a pot still.
                          > >
                          > > My remarks:
                          > >
                          > > 1) Packing.
                          > > Is the use of packing conditional to have a reflux still ?
                          > > Smudge uses no packing, but so many industrial columns don't use
                          > > packing, they have trays instead. Smudge's still has a tall and
                          > wide
                          > > column and it has many horizontal plates, placed so, that they
                          > > function like simple trays. His still does not operate on single
                          > > stage reflux as a pot still, but does definitely so in several
                          > > stages.
                          > > How otherwise could he obtain that purity ?
                          > >
                          > > 2) Uninsulated
                          > > Is the use of insulation conditional to speak of a reflux still ?
                          > > One must create reflux somewhere. With his design, he heats up his
                          > > room to create reflux, others will heat up the drain with warm
                          > water.
                          > >
                          > > 3) As far as asking Smudge to publish his design to the group: I'm
                          > > sure you read some of the posts adressed to Smudge. Would you
                          > > comfortably share ideas with people who prefer to see you in an
                          > > asylum ?
                          > >
                          > > Mike, don't take me wrong about my remarks. For personal use, I
                          > would
                          > > probably modify Smudge's design. I would extend the column to have
                          > > more stages (less reflux needed), I would insulate it and would
                          > > create the traditional reflux outside of the column etc.
                          > >
                          > > BUT, I appreciate Smudge's ideas about controlling the still with
                          > the
                          > > temperature sensor on top and I very much admire his polite,
                          > > steadfast and scientific attitude with which he defends his
                          > > experiments. I have no problems at all with knowledgeable people
                          > > saying "I win" when they win.
                          > >
                          > > Sincerely,
                          > > Dirk
                          > >
                          > > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Nixon" <mike@s...> wrote:
                          > > > homedistiller wrote:
                          > > > Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish
                          > > >
                          > > > I'm still very puzzled about Mike Nixon calling your still a pot
                          > > still !?
                          > > > =====================================
                          > > > I call it a pot still because the column contains no packing and
                          > > because it is uninsulated, both of which are features that define
                          a
                          > > reflux still. Smudge has kindly sent me details of its
                          > construction.
                          > > The feature that makes it a "better" pot still is that he has
                          > > devised a way of getting the reflux that condenses on the
                          > uninsulated
                          > > walls away from them by a series of plates that direct the reflux
                          to
                          > > the centre of the column. This reduces the amount of cooling and
                          > > promotes further re-evaporation. It is a good technique.
                          > > >
                          > > > You might ask Smudge to publish his design to this Group, and
                          you
                          > > will see what I mean. His design, his privilege.
                          > > >
                          > > > Mike N
                        • Mike Nixon
                          Hi Dirk, Smudge did also send his plans to me. His pictures, drawings and information were the primary reason for me to wonder about you defining his still as
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Dirk,
                             
                            Smudge did also send his plans to me. His pictures, drawings and information were the primary reason for me to wonder about you defining his still as a pot still.

                            My remarks:

                            1) Packing.
                            Is the use of packing conditional to have a reflux still ?
                            Smudge uses no packing, but so many industrial columns don't use packing, they have trays instead. Smudge's still has a tall and wide column and it has many horizontal plates, placed so, that they function like simple trays. His still does not operate on single stage reflux as a pot still, but does definitely so in several stages.
                            How otherwise could he obtain that purity ?
                            Industrial columns that use trays invariably have either loose packing material laid on those trays or things like bubble caps to increase the surface area of the liquid exposed to the vapour.  Even so, they are usually called fractionating towers, rectifiers, or some such description.  They could also be called reflux columns, but that term is usually reserved for columns that are filled with packing material, such as lab gear.  Both use reflux to effect separation, so the distinction could be said to be arbitrary.  Bit like calling a spade a spade and a plough a plough ... both do the same job, but on a different scale.
                             
                            What Smudge has is a plain, uninsulated column that behaves like a lyne arm, with the smart added feature of discs/flanges that direct the condensed liquid from the walls to the centre of the column.  These are similar to ribbing used in the big industrial columns to do the same job, but in those cases the primary aim is to form pools of liquid on the trays so that bubbling etc can take place.  The liquid in Smudge's still hasn't got the chance to hang around for any length of time at each level, so he's relying on what wet surfaces there are for interchange.  Most of the reflux just shoots right on down back down to the boiler.  It's for that reason that I call it a pot still, as its design and operation is closer to the lyne arm of a whiskey pot still than any of the other types of still.

                            2) Uninsulated
                            Is the use of insulation conditional to speak of a reflux still ?
                            One must create reflux somewhere. With his design, he heats up his room to create reflux, others will heat up the drain with warm water.
                            Insulation is usually used with both commercial monsters and small packed reflux stills in order to conserve heat, reason simply being that this makes the interchange procedure more efficient inside the column.  Heaps of sound analysis has been done on that for us to know that this is positively true.  Heat conservation is also a factor in commercial stills of course, so they go to great pains to conserve the heat extracted at the top of their columns and use it usefully elsewhere.  Not worth it in our case with the tiddlers we play around with.
                             
                            What Smudge is doing is extracting heat through the walls of his still to generate reflux, rather than at the top.  He is also carefully balancing the heat input to the boiler so that the amount of heat introduced is just a bit greater than that lost this way.  This means that there is less and less vapour the further up you go, and the vapour speed therefore gets slower and slower, and vapour is in contact with liquid for longer the closer to the top you go.  This compensates for the loss in efficiency due to heat loss through the column sides, and the inefficient interfacing between liquid and vapour inside.  What finally reaches the top is good, pure stuff, but the price he pays is that the rate of production is very slow.

                            3) As far as asking Smudge to publish his design to the group: I'm sure you read some of the posts adressed to Smudge. Would you comfortably share ideas with people who prefer to see you in an asylum ?
                            Perhaps if he did publish, then people could see what he's on about.  I must admit to being rather mystified myself at times with some of his descriptions, and it's not much good saying that you have a great still that is the bee's knees (to keep to his bumble bee analogy), but persist in not showing people what it looks like.  You and I have an advantage there and, in fact, I've been kept busy exchanging emails with Smudge over the past couple of weeks trying to explain how his still works the way it does, and how he might improve on that production rate problem (which he has acknowledged as being a pain).  I have to say that it has not been easy, as our lad has rather entrenched ideas on what happens inside a still, and it's been impossible to shake his faith in those beliefs.

                            Mike, don't take me wrong about my remarks. For personal use, I would probably modify Smudge's design. I would extend the column to have more stages (less reflux needed), I would insulate it and would create the traditional reflux outside of the column etc.
                            No worries Mate!  Under the Seal.  I fully agree with your suggested approach, and I went through the whole nine yards of explaining about the efficiency loss inherent in heat loss from the sides, but suggested that he could nevertheless keep his still uninsulated, and operating the same way as before, but improve separation by filling the spaces between those flanges with packing.  That alone would increase the rate at which he could operate the thing as the rate of separation as you go up his column would speed up markedly as the surface area exposed to vapour would be dramatically increased.  He seemed ready to try that at one stage, then reverted to "no, I'm right ... I win".  Seemed a silly thing to say at the time, particularly as it related to what had been up till then a private exchange of emails and nobody on the list would have had a clue about what it was he had won.  As far as I was concerned, it was never a competition anyway ... simply what he had invited at the beginning: a discussion.

                            BUT, I appreciate Smudge's ideas about controlling the still with the temperature sensor on top and I very much admire his polite, steadfast and scientific attitude with which he defends his experiments. I have no problems at all with knowledgeable people saying "I win" when they win.
                            It's not the way he chooses to run his still ... he's using the same technique they've been using for ages with traditional whiskey stills ... but I must beg to differ in my assessment of his courtesy and his 'scientific' attitude.  Just between us, he can get a bit heated and irrational when he can't get his head around fairly simple concepts.  I have suggested that he check what I was trying to explain to him with someone else, like Tony, or to check on a few books in the library, but as far as I'm aware he hasn't done that.  As for the latest equation he's put up, it may well be a valid one, but it's not something I've seen before and he didn't provide enough info for analysis.  I'm hoping he will do so soon, as it might be interesting.  On the 'win' thing, can you ever 'win' a discussion?  To me, a discussion is simply a sharing of ideas and information, not a competition. 
                             
                            In fact, I have a sneaking sympathy for that guy Charlie.  Reading between all the fuming, I sensed a feeling of frustration that he's been led on a bit of a wild goose chase.  Seemed like he felt he'd been trying hard to make sense of a new subject, but has ended up with a mess of contradictory notions just when he thought he was getting the hang of it all.  Rather over the top, I agree, but I've been known to kick the cat on occasions when I'm feeling frustrated :-)
                             
                            At the end of the day, all that matters really is to try and enjoy this hobby.  If someone is happy with a particular world view, then that's fine by me.  I might disagree, but it's not worth going to war for.
                             
                            Cheers!
                             
                            Mike
                             

                             
                          • Mike Nixon
                            waljaco wrote: Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish Obviously pictures speak better than words! Re: Insulation Commercial stills using plates do
                            Message 13 of 19 , Apr 1, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              waljaco wrote:
                              Subject: [Distillers] Re: Goats and other rubbish

                              Obviously pictures speak better than words!
                              Re: Insulation
                              Commercial stills using plates do not have insulation. Do they compensate by using more power?
                              Wal
                              ==================================
                              Hi Wal,
                               
                              I think you will find that they do, as heat is an expensive commodity in big plant.  Tony might have more info on this ... what's the word Tony?
                               
                              Mike N
                               
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.