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

Re: [Distillers] Question for BOKAKOB

Expand Messages
  • BOKAKOB
    Mike, your highlight is immaculate! Right on the spot for high-power stills! But in my measurements I took in account trembling of my hands, vibration of lose
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike, your highlight is immaculate! Right on the spot for high-power stills! But in my measurements I took in account trembling of my hands, vibration of lose parts, temperature expansion at the time of measurements, warping of old rusty drill bit and non-perpendicularity of the holes. Whew... Also, I might have made a mistake in the final count of holes (again -- complements to my production :) All the above factors might have made the final reading off a little. Anyway, for stills what use high power levels I yield to the absolute knowledge.
      Thank you respectfully for corrections.
       
      However, I noticed the following differences in running my still the way I like it -- on low power:
       
      1. Better separation. Period. No "but's," "if's" and "maybe's" I've tested it and it works.
      2. Lower power consumption (I could care less because it is free for me).
      3. Lesser coolant use (lately I scarcely use coolant at all - just dripping water)
      4. More piece of mind that there would not be any vapor escaping or reflux "gurgling."
       
      As in nature in general -- "the simpler is better and live longer" rule -- it works fine (again for me, on my conditions, for myself to be comfortable, for my simple minimalistic power level still).
       
      Perhaps it is a newbie's argument, but my friends are lining up to get a bottle of what they call SuperAbsolute and MartiniSmoothie at my parties, perhaps because it is free :-)
      Cheers and bottoms up!

      Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
      George wrote:
      Subject: [Distillers] Question for BOKAKOB

      In the Photos section of this board I was looking at a drawing labeled "Single Reducer-Cactus."  At the bottom of the drawing you
      indicate that 80 1/8" holes would yield an area of 1.1 sq." opening that would be sufficient to allow vapors to enter the 2" diam.
      column.  If I've run my numbers correctly this means that the column would be about 2/3 restricted at this point.  Is there a
      method/formula to determine the best/least effective opening size at the base of the column?  Is a fully opened column better, or does a restricted opening offer some advantages?  I do understand that there must be some restriction there to hold the packing in the column.
      George 
      ===========================
      BOKABOB replied:
      I really don't know. I had 0.125" drill bit ready. It looked good. Then I did a layout on CAD so I would have a nice pattern with enough "meat" inbetween holes. After that I printed the pattern and glued it temporarily to the bowl. I drilled ALL OF THEM holes!!!! I did it good, It looked good, It must be good then... so, IT WAS DONER AND IT WORKED! I did not touch it after that. I never though about theory behind it. It still works fine.
      ==========================
      Couple of points, if I may ...
      80 1/8" holes actually come to 0.98 sq."
      The ratio of the total hole area to the cross-section area of the column is therefore 31.25% ... a tad less than 2/3
      (so, who cares?  Goodenuff  :-)
       
      The sums have actually been done, and are available in any standard fluid dynamics text.  It turns out that if liquid is to flow freely down through holes in a plate against an opposite flow of vapor, then the ratio should be around 50% or more (a rough guide, as other factors like speed of vapor, viscosity, etc are taken into account in the general solution ... 50% is what you get with typical values from a still like ours plugged in).
       
      So I'm sure that Alex's beautifully drilled plate does work fine (a good guide), but if you are copying that then try using a 4mm drill bit instead of a 0.125" bit.  The ratio will then be 49.6% and you will be able to cope with very high power without that plate causing flooding.
       
      Mike N


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


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    • Mike Nixon
      No dissent at all me old Mate :-) It was simply that George had asked if there was a method/formula that could be applied. As you said, you grabbed the nearest
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        No dissent at all me old Mate :-)
        It was simply that George had asked if there was a method/formula that could be applied.
        As you said, you grabbed the nearest handy drill bit, and it was darn near the 'perfect' size.  Ain't much difference between
        0.125 " and 4mm ... just 0.9mm.
         
        All the best,
        Mike N
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: BOKAKOB
        Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:47 PM
        Subject: Re: [Distillers] Question for BOKAKOB

        Mike, your highlight is immaculate! Right on the spot for high-power stills! But in my measurements I took in account trembling of my hands, vibration of lose parts, temperature expansion at the time of measurements, warping of old rusty drill bit and non-perpendicularity of the holes. Whew... Also, I might have made a mistake in the final count of holes (again -- complements to my production :) All the above factors might have made the final reading off a little. Anyway, for stills what use high power levels I yield to the absolute knowledge.
        Thank you respectfully for corrections.
         
        However, I noticed the following differences in running my still the way I like it -- on low power:
         
        1. Better separation. Period. No "but's," "if's" and "maybe's" I've tested it and it works.
        2. Lower power consumption (I could care less because it is free for me).
        3. Lesser coolant use (lately I scarcely use coolant at all - just dripping water)
        4. More piece of mind that there would not be any vapor escaping or reflux "gurgling."
         
        As in nature in general -- "the simpler is better and live longer" rule -- it works fine (again for me, on my conditions, for myself to be comfortable, for my simple minimalistic power level still).
         
        Perhaps it is a newbie's argument, but my friends are lining up to get a bottle of what they call SuperAbsolute and MartiniSmoothie at my parties, perhaps because it is free :-)
        Cheers and bottoms up!

        Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
        George wrote:
        Subject: [Distillers] Question for BOKAKOB

        In the Photos section of this board I was looking at a drawing labeled "Single Reducer-Cactus."  At the bottom of the drawing you
        indicate that 80 1/8" holes would yield an area of 1.1 sq." opening that would be sufficient to allow vapors to enter the 2" diam.
        column.  If I've run my numbers correctly this means that the column would be about 2/3 restricted at this point.  Is there a
        method/formula to determine the best/least effective opening size at the base of the column?  Is a fully opened column better, or does a restricted opening offer some advantages?  I do understand that there must be some restriction there to hold the packing in the column.
        George 
        ===========================
        BOKABOB replied:
        I really don't know. I had 0.125" drill bit ready. It looked good. Then I did a layout on CAD so I would have a nice pattern with enough "meat" inbetween holes. After that I printed the pattern and glued it temporarily to the bowl. I drilled ALL OF THEM holes!!!! I did it good, It looked good, It must be good then... so, IT WAS DONER AND IT WORKED! I did not touch it after that. I never though about theory behind it. It still works fine.
        ==========================
        Couple of points, if I may ...
        80 1/8" holes actually come to 0.98 sq."
        The ratio of the total hole area to the cross-section area of the column is therefore 31.25% ... a tad less than 2/3
        (so, who cares?  Goodenuff  :-)
         
        The sums have actually been done, and are available in any standard fluid dynamics text.  It turns out that if liquid is to flow freely down through holes in a plate against an opposite flow of vapor, then the ratio should be around 50% or more (a rough guide, as other factors like speed of vapor, viscosity, etc are taken into account in the general solution ... 50% is what you get with typical values from a still like ours plugged in).
         
        So I'm sure that Alex's beautifully drilled plate does work fine (a good guide), but if you are copying that then try using a 4mm drill bit instead of a 0.125" bit.  The ratio will then be 49.6% and you will be able to cope with very high power without that plate causing flooding.
         
        Mike N


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


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

        To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
        FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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

      • George
        ... labeled Single Reducer-Cactus. At the bottom of the drawing you ... that would be sufficient to allow vapors to enter the 2 diam. ... column would be
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Nixon" <mike@s...> wrote:
          > George wrote:
          > Subject: [Distillers] Question for BOKAKOB
          >
          > In the Photos section of this board I was looking at a drawing
          labeled "Single Reducer-Cactus." At the bottom of the drawing you
          > indicate that 80 1/8" holes would yield an area of 1.1 sq." opening
          that would be sufficient to allow vapors to enter the 2" diam.
          > column. If I've run my numbers correctly this means that the
          column would be about 2/3 restricted at this point. Is there a
          > method/formula to determine the best/least effective opening size
          at the base of the column? Is a fully opened column better, or does
          a restricted opening offer some advantages? I do understand that
          there must be some restriction there to hold the packing in the
          column.
          > George
          > ===========================
          > BOKABOB replied:
          > I really don't know. I had 0.125" drill bit ready. It looked good.
          Then I did a layout on CAD so I would have a nice pattern with
          enough "meat" inbetween holes. After that I printed the pattern and
          glued it temporarily to the bowl. I drilled ALL OF THEM holes!!!! I
          did it good, It looked good, It must be good then... so, IT WAS DONER
          AND IT WORKED! I did not touch it after that. I never though about
          theory behind it. It still works fine.
          > ==========================
          > Couple of points, if I may ...
          > 80 1/8" holes actually come to 0.98 sq."
          > The ratio of the total hole area to the cross-section area of the
          column is therefore 31.25% ... a tad less than 2/3
          > (so, who cares? Goodenuff :-)
          >
          > The sums have actually been done, and are available in any standard
          fluid dynamics text. It turns out that if liquid is to flow freely
          down through holes in a plate against an opposite flow of vapor, then
          the ratio should be around 50% or more (a rough guide, as other
          factors like speed of vapor, viscosity, etc are taken into account in
          the general solution ... 50% is what you get with typical values from
          a still like ours plugged in).
          >
          > So I'm sure that Alex's beautifully drilled plate does work fine (a
          good guide), but if you are copying that then try using a 4mm drill
          bit instead of a 0.125" bit. The ratio will then be 49.6% and you
          will be able to cope with very high power without that plate causing
          flooding.
          >
          > Mike N

          Upon reinspection of BOKAKOB's drawing, this time with my reading
          glasses on, I see that there are 88 holes, not 80 holes, so the total
          opening is the 1.1 sq" claimed. The restricted area is 64.97% which
          is a tad less than the "about 2/3" that I mentioned. The open area
          is 35.03%.

          Now, in theory, is there an optimum opening relative to column
          diameter? 50%? >50%? 100%? Is there any reason to purposely design
          in a restriction at the base of the column?

          George
        • Mike Nixon
          George wrote: Subject: [Distillers] Re: Question for BOKAKOB Upon reinspection of BOKAKOB s drawing, this time with my reading glasses on, I see that there are
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            George wrote:
            Subject: [Distillers] Re: Question for BOKAKOB

            Upon reinspection of BOKAKOB's drawing, this time with my reading glasses on, I see that there are 88 holes, not 80 holes, so the total opening is the 1.1 sq" claimed.  The restricted area is 64.97% which is a tad less than the "about 2/3" that I mentioned.  The open area is 35.03%.

            Now, in theory, is there an optimum opening relative to column diameter?  50%? >50%? 100%?  Is there any reason to purposely design in a restriction at the base of the column?
            =========================
            Hi George,

            As I said: The sums have actually been done, etc. and 50% is the optimum you get if you using typical figures for the stills we generally use.  Anything less and you risk flooding due to liquid being held up on the plate, and anything more is overkill.
             
            Some use a plate as they have to support loose packing materials, eg. raschig rings.  Maybe that is Alex's reason ... I don't know.  Whatever it is, I'm sure it is there with a purpose.

            What I was trying to get at is that if 50% ratio is the 'optimum', then we should be aiming for half the area of the plate, 1.57 sq."  This not a figure I have plucked out of thin air, but is based on what experts in fluid dynamics say should be the optimum (based on laminar flow), and I believe that they should know what they are talking about.

            88 x 0.125" drilled holes do indeed give 1.1 sq.", but this gives a ratio of just 35%.
            Alex has said that this works fine for him the way he operates his still, so he is clearly below the point that flooding would become a problem ... well below ... which is kewl.  As he has said, he likes to operate at low power, and I fully agree with him that low power is the way to go for best results.  If he ever increased the rate at which he runs his still, then the equations forecast that he would encounter problems at some point.  If the cut area were to be increased to 50%, then the equations predict that he would not.  That's all. 
             
            Incidentally, those dratted equations relate to lots of holes evenly dispersed over the area of the plate.  They do not apply to drilling just one 1.18" diameter hole in the middle ... which is also 1.1 sq.".
             
            All the best,
            Mike N
             
             
             
          • BOKAKOB
            IMHO there should not be any restrictions. There is a balance between providing a free passage and the need to support the collumn innards. The more passage
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              IMHO there should not be any restrictions. There is a balance between providing a free passage and the need to support the collumn innards. The more passage space you have the better it is. What I found is that I stuffed the s.s. scrubbers so tight that there is no need for those holes at all. It can be completely open and the scrubbers are hanging in the column just by friction.

              George <mattoleriver@...> wrote:
              --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Nixon" <mike@s...> wrote:
              > George wrote:
              > Subject: [Distillers] Question for BOKAKOB
              >
              > In the Photos section of this board I was looking at a drawing
              labeled "Single Reducer-Cactus."  At the bottom of the drawing you
              > indicate that 80 1/8" holes would yield an area of 1.1 sq." opening
              that would be sufficient to allow vapors to enter the 2" diam.
              > column.  If I've run my numbers correctly this means that the
              column would be about 2/3 restricted at this point.  Is there a
              > method/formula to determine the best/least effective opening size
              at the base of the column?  Is a fully opened column better, or does
              a restricted opening offer some advantages?  I do understand that
              there must be some restriction there to hold the packing in the
              column.
              > George 
              > ===========================
              > BOKABOB replied:
              > I really don't know. I had 0.125" drill bit ready. It looked good.
              Then I did a layout on CAD so I would have a nice pattern with
              enough "meat" inbetween holes. After that I printed the pattern and
              glued it temporarily to the bowl. I drilled ALL OF THEM holes!!!! I
              did it good, It looked good, It must be good then... so, IT WAS DONER
              AND IT WORKED! I did not touch it after that. I never though about
              theory behind it. It still works fine.
              > ==========================
              > Couple of points, if I may ...
              > 80 1/8" holes actually come to 0.98 sq."
              > The ratio of the total hole area to the cross-section area of the
              column is therefore 31.25% ... a tad less than 2/3
              > (so, who cares?  Goodenuff  :-)
              >
              > The sums have actually been done, and are available in any standard
              fluid dynamics text.  It turns out that if liquid is to flow freely
              down through holes in a plate against an opposite flow of vapor, then
              the ratio should be around 50% or more (a rough guide, as other
              factors like speed of vapor, viscosity, etc are taken into account in
              the general solution ... 50% is what you get with typical values from
              a still like ours plugged in).
              >
              > So I'm sure that Alex's beautifully drilled plate does work fine (a
              good guide), but if you are copying that then try using a 4mm drill
              bit instead of a 0.125" bit.  The ratio will then be 49.6% and you
              will be able to cope with very high power without that plate causing
              flooding.
              >
              > Mike N

              Upon reinspection of BOKAKOB's drawing, this time with my reading
              glasses on, I see that there are 88 holes, not 80 holes, so the total
              opening is the 1.1 sq" claimed.  The restricted area is 64.97% which
              is a tad less than the "about 2/3" that I mentioned.  The open area
              is 35.03%.

              Now, in theory, is there an optimum opening relative to column
              diameter?  50%? >50%? 100%?  Is there any reason to purposely design
              in a restriction at the base of the column?

              George




              To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
              FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


              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! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
            • toddk63
              Interesting thread. I guess I (incorrectly) assumed that no matter what hole pattern I chose it would be more flow path area than what the scrubbers provide.
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Interesting thread. I guess I (incorrectly) assumed that no matter
                what hole pattern I chose it would be more flow path area than what
                the scrubbers provide. I thought I would get better area using a
                larger drill bit than .125" (and I was right). So I used a .25"
                bit-28 holes. That's about 39%. I may go back and re-drill the holes
                to .375" for 87%! Even if I can only re-drill every other hole that
                would be 63%.

                Todd K.

                --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "George" <mattoleriver@y...> wrote:
                > In the Photos section of this board I was looking at a drawing
                > labeled "Single Reducer-Cactus." At the bottom of the drawing you
                > indicate that 80 1/8" holes would yield an area of 1.1 sq." opening
                > that would be sufficient to allow vapors to enter the 2" diam.
                > column. If I've run my numbers correctly this means that the column
                > would be about 2/3 restricted at this point. Is there a
                > method/formula to determine the best/least effective opening size at
                > the base of the column? Is a fully opened column better, or does a
                > restricted opening offer some advantages? I do understand that
                there
                > must be some restriction there to hold the packing in the column.
                > George
              • toddk63
                BOKAKOB, Back to the question on holes and %area. Someone stated that 50% area was ideal for high power so that the falling condensate and rising vapor had
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  BOKAKOB,

                  Back to the question on holes and %area. Someone stated that 50% area
                  was ideal for high power so that the falling condensate and rising
                  vapor had sufficient area. Does anyone know the source of that 50%
                  number? I would like to do some more reading on that.

                  Also, I am confused. There seems to be a discrepancy between the 80 x
                  1/8" (~30%) holes bit and the area of the 3/4" (~13%) pipe overflow
                  tube in your double and single reducer designs. I built your SR
                  design. Why doesn't the 3/4"tube have the same area criteria as the
                  holes?

                  TIA,

                  Todd K.




                  --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "toddk63" <toddk63@y...> wrote:
                  > Interesting thread. I guess I (incorrectly) assumed that no matter
                  > what hole pattern I chose it would be more flow path area than what
                  > the scrubbers provide. I thought I would get better area using a
                  > larger drill bit than .125" (and I was right). So I used a .25"
                  > bit-28 holes. That's about 39%. I may go back and re-drill the
                  holes
                  > to .375" for 87%! Even if I can only re-drill every other hole that
                  > would be 63%.
                  >
                  > Todd K.
                  >
                • BOKAKOB
                  The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge. To the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment

                    The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.

                     

                    To the best of my knowledge, the number 50% comes from distillation processes when you have plates with holes that work in the distillation columns. Then the fine balance between rising vapors, distillate pooling on the top surface of the column and the precipitation of the distillate to the bottom plates must be achieved. All this is very applicable to industrial columns and to high turnover.

                     

                    My home made column is not near to that scale. It is not designed to be that way. In my particular case those holes were designed only for one sole purpose � to provide sufficient support for the distillation column innards and let the vapors pass through. Once a while ago I wanted to use my fine-cut drinking straws as Raschig rings (pardon me if spelling is wrong). Those 6mm diameter by 6mm height rings made from ordinary drinking straws (polypropelene) would be loose material and it had to be supported. It would give me very good access to the fill material when I would want to clean it � just tip over and pour them in the tub with detergent.

                     

                    Instead, I used stainless steel scrubbers and really stuffed them pretty good inside the column. Now all these scrubbers are just sitting there and holding on friction only. So, I actually don�t need those holes at all! A one large hole would do the trick.

                     

                    Since I am reasonable lazy �New York Home Boy� (ha-ha-ha � so funny Billy) I never did any modifications. Believe me, if you are not planning to run this still to the point when vapors are oozing out of every possible orifice, then even this number of holes is sufficient.

                     

                    When I was testing my setup I opened the burner all the way along with completely opening the take-off needle valve. I had absolutely no problem in vapors getting through the holes. But there was not much returning of distillate happening there.

                     

                    It is a completely different story when the take-out valve is almost closed while heating up the pot like crazy. Then you have Niagara Falls inside the column. In this case I completely agree with honorable judges. The minimum 50% is a must. But my design was not meant for this!

                     

                    So, it all depends on what you want to do with your still. I chose low-power operation with little return by the condenser on top. I did mention it �return� not �reflux,� because reflux will happen as vapors rise in the column -- naturally. Theoretically there is no need for �compounding.� This is only needed when much of vapors get passed above the last top-most filament of the refluxing material. Then you must somehow return it down in the column. When it happens on a small scale then it is OK (again in my humble personal opinion). I don�t think this compounding adds much quality. I think the quality belongs to the height of the column, speed at which vapors rise and the initial contamination with by-products in the distilling wash (again - in my humble personal opinion).

                    All of the above are my thought which may be not in agreement with the latest fluid dynamics science (simply put "I must say that I can be wrong...")

                     


                    toddk63 <toddk63@...> wrote:
                    BOKAKOB,

                    Back to the question on holes and %area.  Someone stated that 50% area was ideal for high power so that the falling condensate and rising vapor had sufficient area.  Does anyone know the source of that 50% number?  I would like to do some more reading on that.
                    Also, I am confused.  There seems to be a discrepancy between the 80 x 1/8" (~30%) holes bit and the area of the 3/4" (~13%) pipe overflow tube in your double and single reducer designs.  I built your SR design. Why doesn't the 3/4"tube have the same area criteria as the
                    holes? TIA, Todd K.

                    --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "toddk63" <toddk63@y...> wrote:
                    > Interesting thread.  I guess I (incorrectly) assumed that no matter what hole pattern I chose it would be more flow path area than what the scrubbers provide. I thought I would get better area using a larger drill bit than .125" (and I was right).  So I used a .25" bit-28 holes.  That's about 39%.  I may go back and re-drill the holes to .375" for 87%!  Even if I can only re-drill every other hole that would be 63%. Todd K.


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


                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                  • toddk63
                    Very prompt and thorough response. Thanks! Todd K. ... not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Very prompt and thorough response. Thanks!

                      Todd K.

                      --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, BOKAKOB <bokakob@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is
                      not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid
                      overflowing the edge.
                      >
                      >
                    • Mike Nixon
                      BOKAKOB wrote: Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        BOKAKOB wrote:
                        Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                        The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.
                         
                        To the best of my knowledge, the number 50% comes from distillation processes when you have plates with holes that work in the distillation columns. Then the fine balance between rising vapors, distillate pooling on the top surface of the column and the precipitation of the distillate to the bottom plates must be achieved. All this is very applicable to industrial columns and to high turnover.
                        (snip)
                        =============================
                        Hi Alex,
                         
                        Just to answer that implied question above ... the 50% actually comes not from distillation columns but from applying figures for speed, viscosity, surface tension, etc ad nauseam to some basic equations that come from fluid dynamics.  These are nothing new ... to illustrate how old they are, I first encountered them as a student in my applied maths studies (Good grief!  THAT long ago????).  They are perhaps interesting if you want to mess around with equations, but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber) if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice ProPak thingies.  This would probably be very much easier than drilling a plate, and would give you a very high hole/column cross-section ratio.  Waddya reckon?
                         
                        Mike N
                      • BOKAKOB
                        Fine by me. Sound fun to do. What I did seemed easir for me at that time. Regarding the explanations I think that my meek words are close enough to what you
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Fine by me. Sound fun to do. What I did seemed easir for me at that time. Regarding the explanations I think that my meek words are close enough to what you just described, though I have no connection to fluid mechanics, chemistry and other things of this type.
                           
                          True, a little hole in the side wall all around and a net like a tenise racket would do the trick very nicely. But I wanted thooooose inches of the column length.....

                          Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
                          BOKAKOB wrote:
                          Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                          The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.
                           
                          To the best of my knowledge, the number 50% comes from distillation processes when you have plates with holes that work in the distillation columns. Then the fine balance between rising vapors, distillate pooling on the top surface of the column and the precipitation of the distillate to the bottom plates must be achieved. All this is very applicable to industrial columns and to high turnover.
                          (snip)
                          =============================
                          Hi Alex,
                           
                          Just to answer that implied question above ... the 50% actually comes not from distillation columns but from applying figures for speed, viscosity, surface tension, etc ad nauseam to some basic equations that come from fluid dynamics.  These are nothing new ... to illustrate how old they are, I first encountered them as a student in my applied maths studies (Good grief!  THAT long ago????).  They are perhaps interesting if you want to mess around with equations, but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber) if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice ProPak thingies.  This would probably be very much easier than drilling a plate, and would give you a very high hole/column cross-section ratio.  Waddya reckon?
                           
                          Mike N


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


                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                        • peter_vcb
                          i have a short 70mm column, to hold scrubbers in i drilled 6 holes around its base and fed a thin copper wire in and criss-crossed it between all the holes. i
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 11, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            i have a short 70mm column, to hold scrubbers in i drilled 6 holes
                            around its base and fed a thin copper wire in and criss-crossed it
                            between all the holes. i used to put copper turnings in too, i would
                            rest some aluminium mesh from a fryingpan splash guard on my copper
                            wire and then pour in the turnings.

                            Peter



                            but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of
                            our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire
                            through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a
                            couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber)
                            if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice
                            ProPak thingies
                          • Mike Nixon
                            Hi Peter, After Roberts ROFLMAO link to that computer still, it is comforting to learn that you do not operate a wireless still :-) Mike N ... From:
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 11, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Peter,
                               
                              After Roberts ROFLMAO link to that computer still, it is comforting to learn that you do not operate a 'wireless' still  :-)
                               
                              Mike N
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: peter_vcb
                              Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:43 PM
                              Subject: [Distillers] Re: Another Question for BOKAKOB

                              i have a short 70mm column, to hold scrubbers in i drilled 6 holes
                              around its base and fed a thin copper wire in and criss-crossed it
                              between all the holes. i used to put copper turnings in too, i would
                              rest some aluminium mesh from a fryingpan splash guard on my copper
                              wire and then pour in the turnings.

                              Peter



                              but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of
                              our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire
                              through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a
                              couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber)
                              if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice
                              ProPak thingies



                              To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                              FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                            • Brandon Lee
                              Hey guys-- have been reading your post and i would like to say that my disc column is working better than i ever expected--again the disc are fitted inside my
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 23, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hey guys-- have been reading your post and i would like to say that my disc column is working better than i ever expected--again the disc are fitted inside my 2.5" column- each disc has 17 .25"holes drilled into them - with 8 disc at approx. 6"intervals  my alcohol %at approx 10-15 drops per sec(almost like a little solid stream) for the first .75 gals is 92%-- i usually run my unit to 185degrees at this point i usually have 1.25 gals total-- the last .5 gal %is around 88% -- the last time i ran the unit i had 4 batches 12.5 gal  batches-- i tested the drip at different rates--the results were almost the same-- even running the unit to 195 degrees the yield %is around 77-80%--this is the same exact unit as the one i would run before with the exception of the disc-- with 2-3 more disc i believe i could achieve94%plus-- my theory is like my old Choctaw indian grandfather told me long ago-- if it works for u -leave it alone
                                your brother in the spirits
                                Blueflame456

                                Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
                                BOKAKOB wrote:
                                Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                                The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.
                                 
                                To the best of my knowledge, the number 50% comes from distillation processes when you have plates with holes that work in the distillation columns. Then the fine balance between rising vapors, distillate pooling on the top surface of the column and the precipitation of the distillate to the bottom plates must be achieved. All this is very applicable to industrial columns and to high turnover.
                                (snip)
                                =============================
                                Hi Alex,
                                 
                                Just to answer that implied question above ... the 50% actually comes not from distillation columns but from applying figures for speed, viscosity, surface tension, etc ad nauseam to some basic equations that come from fluid dynamics.  These are nothing new ... to illustrate how old they are, I first encountered them as a student in my applied maths studies (Good grief!  THAT long ago????).  They are perhaps interesting if you want to mess around with equations, but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber) if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice ProPak thingies.  This would probably be very much easier than drilling a plate, and would give you a very high hole/column cross-section ratio.  Waddya reckon?
                                 
                                Mike N


                                To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                                FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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


                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

                              • Mike Nixon
                                Hi Brandon, Just goes to prove the wisdom of your grandfather :-) Theory is a guide that helps you avoid pitfalls with your eyes open ... Practice is a guide
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 23, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Brandon,
                                   
                                  Just goes to prove the wisdom of your grandfather :-)
                                  Theory is a guide that helps you avoid pitfalls with your eyes open ...
                                  Practice is a guide that enables you to avoid those pitfalls with your eyes closed
                                   
                                  Mike N
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:23 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                                  Hey guys-- have been reading your post and i would like to say that my disc column is working better than i ever expected--again the disc are fitted inside my 2.5" column- each disc has 17 .25"holes drilled into them - with 8 disc at approx. 6"intervals  my alcohol %at approx 10-15 drops per sec(almost like a little solid stream) for the first .75 gals is 92%-- i usually run my unit to 185degrees at this point i usually have 1.25 gals total-- the last .5 gal %is around 88% -- the last time i ran the unit i had 4 batches 12.5 gal  batches-- i tested the drip at different rates--the results were almost the same-- even running the unit to 195 degrees the yield %is around 77-80%--this is the same exact unit as the one i would run before with the exception of the disc-- with 2-3 more disc i believe i could achieve94%plus-- my theory is like my old Choctaw indian grandfather told me long ago-- if it works for u -leave it alone
                                  your brother in the spirits
                                  Blueflame456

                                  Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
                                  BOKAKOB wrote:
                                  Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                                  The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.
                                   
                                  To the best of my knowledge, the number 50% comes from distillation processes when you have plates with holes that work in the distillation columns. Then the fine balance between rising vapors, distillate pooling on the top surface of the column and the precipitation of the distillate to the bottom plates must be achieved. All this is very applicable to industrial columns and to high turnover.
                                  (snip)
                                  =============================
                                  Hi Alex,
                                   
                                  Just to answer that implied question above ... the 50% actually comes not from distillation columns but from applying figures for speed, viscosity, surface tension, etc ad nauseam to some basic equations that come from fluid dynamics.  These are nothing new ... to illustrate how old they are, I first encountered them as a student in my applied maths studies (Good grief!  THAT long ago????).  They are perhaps interesting if you want to mess around with equations, but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber) if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice ProPak thingies.  This would probably be very much easier than drilling a plate, and would give you a very high hole/column cross-section ratio.  Waddya reckon?
                                   
                                  Mike N


                                  To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                                  FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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


                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

                                  To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                                  FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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

                                • Brandon Lee
                                  Hey Mike-- i liked that one--i am trying to keep my eyes closed-- maybe keep one closed and one open Bluerflame456 Mike Nixon wrote: Hi
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 26, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hey Mike-- i liked that one--i am trying to keep my eyes closed-- maybe keep one closed and one open
                                    Bluerflame456

                                    Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
                                    Hi Brandon,
                                     
                                    Just goes to prove the wisdom of your grandfather :-)
                                    Theory is a guide that helps you avoid pitfalls with your eyes open ...
                                    Practice is a guide that enables you to avoid those pitfalls with your eyes closed
                                     
                                    Mike N
                                     
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 12:23 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                                    Hey guys-- have been reading your post and i would like to say that my disc column is working better than i ever expected--again the disc are fitted inside my 2.5" column- each disc has 17 .25"holes drilled into them - with 8 disc at approx. 6"intervals  my alcohol %at approx 10-15 drops per sec(almost like a little solid stream) for the first .75 gals is 92%-- i usually run my unit to 185degrees at this point i usually have 1.25 gals total-- the last .5 gal %is around 88% -- the last time i ran the unit i had 4 batches 12.5 gal  batches-- i tested the drip at different rates--the results were almost the same-- even running the unit to 195 degrees the yield %is around 77-80%--this is the same exact unit as the one i would run before with the exception of the disc-- with 2-3 more disc i believe i could achieve94%plus-- my theory is like my old Choctaw indian grandfather told me long ago-- if it works for u -leave it alone
                                    your brother in the spirits
                                    Blueflame456

                                    Mike Nixon <mike@...> wrote:
                                    BOKAKOB wrote:
                                    Subject: Re: [Distillers] Another Question for BOKAKOB

                                    The simple answer is that behavior of large number of small holes is not the same as the behavior of one large opening with liquid overflowing the edge.
                                     
                                    To the best of my knowledge, the number 50% comes from distillation processes when you have plates with holes that work in the distillation columns. Then the fine balance between rising vapors, distillate pooling on the top surface of the column and the precipitation of the distillate to the bottom plates must be achieved. All this is very applicable to industrial columns and to high turnover.
                                    (snip)
                                    =============================
                                    Hi Alex,
                                     
                                    Just to answer that implied question above ... the 50% actually comes not from distillation columns but from applying figures for speed, viscosity, surface tension, etc ad nauseam to some basic equations that come from fluid dynamics.  These are nothing new ... to illustrate how old they are, I first encountered them as a student in my applied maths studies (Good grief!  THAT long ago????).  They are perhaps interesting if you want to mess around with equations, but it seems to me that if some sort of support is needed in any of our columns to prevent packing moving down, then a single thin wire through the column at the bottom would be enough for scourers, or a couple of thin crosswires to support a bit of wire mesh (or scrubber) if the packing is loose material like Raschig rings or Johan's nice ProPak thingies.  This would probably be very much easier than drilling a plate, and would give you a very high hole/column cross-section ratio.  Waddya reckon?
                                     
                                    Mike N


                                    To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                                    FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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


                                    Do you Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

                                    To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                                    FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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



                                    To unsubscribe from this group send a blank email to   distillers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    Distillers list archives : http://archive.nnytech.net/
                                    FAQ and other information at http://homedistiller.org


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


                                    Do you Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.