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

Fw: [Distillers] Being banished ..

Expand Messages
  • glen
    I havent been kick out yet...but i can see issues arising over leaving the still out for several days if you have like me a 5L still it takes genreally 5
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I havent been kick out yet...but i can see "issues" arising over leaving the
      still out for several days if you have like me a 5L still it takes genreally
      5 days to get all the wash done 1 still a day. Sure get a 25L still have it
      done in a couple hours im working on it! The fermenting barrel "blup blup
      blup" for a week sometimes has been known to cause irritation has has hence
      been banished from hearing distance :( poor barrel!





      > Its a slow day on the group today, so I'll toss an idle question out there
      ...
      >
      > Is it inevitable that all brewers/distillers eventually
      > get banished from using the kitchen for their experiments ?
      >
      > It seems that eventually something is going to boil over / burn / smoke
      heaps / explode / spill / break / ferment too wildly ... It seems like a
      case of "when", not "if"
      >
      > Tony
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Jeanette Dunphy
      Hi all, Can t see me banishing myself out of the kitchen. Only compaints from the kids about the smell of the ferment when making rum! Jeanette
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 26, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all,

        Can't see me banishing myself out of the kitchen. Only
        compaints from the kids about the smell of the ferment
        when making rum!

        Jeanette






        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
        http://greetings.yahoo.com
      • mattdistiller
        ... I find this curious - I often have read about how horrible the smell of fermenting rum is, and yet my batch which is fermenting at the moment, smells
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 26, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > Can't see me banishing myself out of the kitchen. Only
          > compaints from the kids about the smell of the ferment
          > when making rum!

          I find this curious - I often have read about how horrible the smell
          of fermenting rum is, and yet my batch which is fermenting at the
          moment, smells great. I'd say its the second best smelling wash I
          have fermented (the best was the citrus mash!).

          For the background on my wash - I used pure organic molasses - 6.5kg
          made up to 25L, pitched with 2 sachets of EC-1118 champagne yeast.

          I'd describe the smell as a "sugar factory" smell - For those of you
          who have been on a tour through a sugar refining factory, you will
          probably know the smell I mean. I think its good!

          So, am I:
          a) weird
          b) strange
          c) lucky to get a good smelling rum wash
          d) all of the above!

          Matt (Bris)
        • Jeanette Dunphy
          Hey Matt, I said that the kids complained, not me. I think it is just that they don t a a nose for a good ferment. To me, it reminds me of a grassy paddock,
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 28, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Matt,
            I said that the kids complained, not me. I think it
            is just that they don't a a "nose" for a good ferment.
            To me, it reminds me of a grassy paddock, surounded by
            horses eating their molasses for dessert. My idea of
            heaven.
            Who's the strange one?
            Where abouts in Brissie are you?
            I'm on the northside. Bramble Bay area.
            Jeanette


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
            http://greetings.yahoo.com
          • mattdistiller
            Hi all, Well, the much anticipated molasses wash is going to be distilled shortly! I m after any last minute words of wisdom... All molasses wash, fermented
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 28, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi all,

              Well, the much anticipated molasses wash is going to be distilled
              shortly! I'm after any last minute words of wisdom...

              All molasses wash, fermented out fully. Left to settle for 2 days at
              4 degrees. Transferred to a new fermenter. Left to settle for a
              further 2 days at 4 degrees and then warmed up to room temperature
              overnight for distilling.

              Distilling in a Nixon-Stone design still. Planning on 'de-tuning'
              slightly to increase flavour coming over, and distilling a lot faster
              than normal. Has 2 internal elements.

              Advice anyone?

              Matt
            • Matt
              ... heh de-tuning a still, nice usage. well i can t think of any, steady as she goes. the reflux should give you a high level of control over the run. use
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 11:57:50PM -0000, mattdistiller wrote:
                > Distilling in a Nixon-Stone design still. Planning on 'de-tuning'
                > slightly to increase flavour coming over, and distilling a lot faster
                > than normal. Has 2 internal elements.

                heh de-tuning a still, nice usage. well i can't think of any, steady as
                she goes. the reflux should give you a high level of control over the
                run. use the Smiley hints on cuts and tasting. inspect your elements
                after the run to see if they've carbonized any residual sugars/gunk.
                let us know what happens..good luck!

                -matt in SF

                --
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Matthew @ psibercom
                psibercom.org: doing pretty much nothing for the net since 1994!
              • mattdistiller
                Hi all, Well, I finished distilling my new rum wash, and it all worked well! A reminder of the wash: 6.4 kg mollasses, made up to 26L with water, champagne
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi all,

                  Well, I finished distilling my new rum wash, and it all worked well!

                  A reminder of the wash: 6.4 kg mollasses, made up to 26L with water,
                  champagne yeast pitched, fermented for 14 days at 20 degrees C,
                  settled two days at 4 degrees C, transferred to another fermenter,
                  settled a further 2 days 4 degrees C, and then distilled. I also
                  added 902 mL of 90% vodka head/tails as an adjunct, to increase the
                  total rum yield.

                  I distilled the wash in my Nixon Stone still, set up as normal. When
                  the head reached temperature, it settled at 78.1 degrees C. After
                  120 mL of foreshots, the temp increased to 78.4. I then collected
                  820mL of 'heads' at 1 drop/sec, which I have kept to add to the next
                  run. I then increased the flow rate to 250mL/15 minutes, which I
                  kept constant for the remander of the run. I then collected a little
                  over 1750mL of 95% alcohol. The tmperature at the start of the
                  middle run was 78.5 and stayed constant for the first 1000mL or so.
                  The temp then slowly started creeping up, and the flavour also. I
                  stopped collecting when I felt the flavour was too 'acrid', which
                  equated to around 79-80 degrees C. I then collected a further 162mL
                  of tails up to 90 degrees C. As far as making the 'cut' goes, I
                  basically followed the description Ian Smiley has in the corn whiskey
                  book - and it worked well!

                  After washing out the still, I was pleased to find the internal
                  elements had no burnt muck on them - in fact, they were cleaner than
                  when I started! So waiting until the ferment had finished
                  completley, and then the settling time and ferment vessel change
                  seems to have done the trick! I was also pleased to see that
                  the 'scum line' up the side of the boiler was only at about the 45L
                  mark, so the froth didn't fill the headspace of my 60L boiler - thats
                  good. It also lets me know not to distill more than 25-30L of 'high
                  foam potential' wash in my boiler!

                  The flavour is very noticable, quite comparable to bought white rum
                  (but I would say a little smoother) and my wife says 'yummy' - so I
                  guess thats a winner. I have cut it to 50%, and now have a bit over
                  half soaking on toasted and untoasted american oak chips. The other
                  portion I am keeping as white rum.

                  Whilst toasting the oak, I had a fun little episode - I wrapped the
                  oak chips in foil, and put them in the oven at 240 degrees C - the
                  same as I have in the past. However, in the midway turn, I somehow
                  ripped the foil with the tongs I was using. I didn't notice at the
                  time, but noticed abour 4 minutes later when they burst into flames!
                  A quick fold up with the tongs stopped the flames, and into the sink
                  with some water finished it off. It did smell good though..... ;-)

                  Anyway, it has been another succesfull distilling experience, and I
                  can't wait to try the rum 'properly'!

                  Thanks to everyone for the help!

                  Matt (Bris)
                • Matt
                  ... Matt, thanks for the war story, this is excellent info. Did you go ahead with your de-tuning of the still first? If so, what exactly did you do?
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 08:21:53AM -0000, mattdistiller wrote:
                    > Well, I finished distilling my new rum wash, and it all worked well!
                    >
                    > equated to around 79-80 degrees C. I then collected a further 162mL
                    > of tails up to 90 degrees C. As far as making the 'cut' goes, I
                    > basically followed the description Ian Smiley has in the corn whiskey
                    > book - and it worked well!

                    Matt, thanks for the war story, this is excellent info. Did you go ahead with
                    your "de-tuning" of the still first? If so, what exactly did you do? Interesting
                    that your elements were so clean, your settled wash must have been nice and clear.
                    Although, the large adjunct of vodka thrown in could have helped some, too :)

                    -matt SF
                    --
                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Matthew @ psibercom
                    psibercom.org: doing pretty much nothing for the net since 1994!
                  • mattdistiller
                    ... ahead with ... do? My column is 1.2m x 50mm, and I usually fill it all the way up to the top with scrubbers - 18 large ones. For this run, I only put in
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Matt, thanks for the war story, this is excellent info. Did you go
                      ahead with
                      > your "de-tuning" of the still first? If so, what exactly did you
                      do?

                      My column is 1.2m x 50mm, and I usually fill it all the way up to the
                      top with scrubbers - 18 large ones. For this run, I only put in 12,
                      the same as when I did my citrus run. The other part of the 'de-
                      tuning' is the running at constant collection speed. For a vodka
                      run, I reduce the speed towards the end to ensure the head temp
                      doesn't rise, and I get pure vodka. Obviously thats not what I
                      wanted here! So by collecting at a constant speed throughout
                      distillation, towards the end the head temp increased slowly, and as
                      I said, the flavour came accross nicely!

                      > Interesting
                      > that your elements were so clean, your settled wash must have been
                      nice and clear.
                      > Although, the large adjunct of vodka thrown in could have helped
                      some, too :)

                      I'm sure the adjunct helped a little! The wash wasn't really 'clear'
                      as such, it was still VERY black, and had a lot of scum on the top
                      after the wash finished. However, the settling did remove a lot of
                      the suspended particles, so I guess it was a nice 'black clear'? ;-)

                      I forgot to mention in my 'war story' the way I transferred the wash
                      to the still. Because of the foaming I was getting, I used the
                      priciple of a protein skimmer for aquaculture systems. I used an ice
                      cream container with holes cut around the middle about halfway up the
                      sides. In the middles of the inside of the ice cream container, I
                      had a takeaway container raised up to be level almost with the top of
                      the ice-cream container, with holes cut in the bottom, and a course
                      coffee filter sat in very roughly - the coffee filter wasn't to
                      filter the wash, rather to slow the ravel through the holes in the
                      bottom. I sat the fermenter up high on the bench, and opened the tap
                      at the bottom. The wash pours into the takeaway container/coffee
                      filter and froths up, and the liquid drains from the bottom, so the
                      froth and particles stay on top. The liquid draining through falls
                      into the ice cream container, and again froths up, and as it rises up
                      the side and above the holes, again the froth stays on top and the
                      liquid runs out the holes. At the end, there is a fair bit of froth
                      and gunk in the two containers, and hopefully less in the wash!

                      This worked very well, and now I am going to build a proper protein
                      skimmer to be used with the wash as it is transferred to the still.
                      I'll let you know how it goes.

                      Matt
                    • raja_aho
                      Would it stop the foaming by using a tube from fermenter to the bottom of your boiler, same as transfering beer from fermenter to a keg? Then putting a few
                      Message 10 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Would it stop the foaming by using a tube from fermenter to the
                        bottom of your boiler, same as transfering beer from fermenter to a
                        keg?
                        Then putting a few drops of olive oil on top before heating might
                        stop it foaming during the run?
                        Reima
                        > I forgot to mention in my 'war story' the way I transferred the
                        wash
                        > to the still. Because of the foaming I was getting, I used the
                        > priciple of a protein skimmer for aquaculture systems. I used an
                        ice
                        > cream container with holes cut around the middle about halfway up
                        the
                        > sides. In the middles of the inside of the ice cream container, I
                        > had a takeaway container raised up to be level almost with the top
                        of
                        > the ice-cream container, with holes cut in the bottom, and a course
                        > coffee filter sat in very roughly - the coffee filter wasn't to
                        > filter the wash, rather to slow the ravel through the holes in the
                        > bottom. I sat the fermenter up high on the bench, and opened the
                        tap
                        > at the bottom. The wash pours into the takeaway container/coffee
                        > filter and froths up, and the liquid drains from the bottom, so the
                        > froth and particles stay on top. The liquid draining through falls
                        > into the ice cream container, and again froths up, and as it rises
                        up
                        > the side and above the holes, again the froth stays on top and the
                        > liquid runs out the holes. At the end, there is a fair bit of
                        froth
                        > and gunk in the two containers, and hopefully less in the wash!
                        >
                        > This worked very well, and now I am going to build a proper protein
                        > skimmer to be used with the wash as it is transferred to the
                        still.
                        > I'll let you know how it goes.
                        >
                        > Matt
                      • mattdistiller
                        ... Reima, What you say is true, but I my idea isn t to actually stop the foaming as such, but remove the agents/impurities/susspended solids that cause the
                        Message 11 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Distillers@y..., "raja_aho" <raja_aho@y...> wrote:
                          > Would it stop the foaming by using a tube from fermenter to the
                          > bottom of your boiler, same as transfering beer from fermenter to a
                          > keg?
                          > Then putting a few drops of olive oil on top before heating might
                          > stop it foaming during the run?

                          Reima,

                          What you say is true, but I my idea isn't to actually stop the
                          foaming as such, but remove the agents/impurities/susspended solids
                          that cause the foaming. As I described my 'test' system, it was only
                          that - I had the idea about 10 minutes before I was going to distill,
                          and my aparatus took me that long to make!

                          However, what I want to achieve is better than that. I am a
                          freswater and marine ecologist, and so have a very good knowledge of
                          these types of things - i just can't believe I haven't put this
                          thought train together sooner!

                          Foaming is typically caused by very small particles and dissolved
                          organic particles which work as a protein 'detergant' to make the
                          foam. Now while the foam is annoying, thats isn't my main concern -
                          I have enough head space in my boiler to cope with it. My concern is
                          the undesirable 'burnt' and 'off' flavours that can result. Enter the
                          protein skimmer.

                          Protein skimmers are used in marine sytems to remove these small
                          particles, proteins and dissolved organics. They are very simple in
                          design - basically an airstone creates hundreds if bubbles in a long
                          tube as the liquid flows the opposite dirrection to the bubble
                          stream. The bubbles pick up all the small particles and dissolved
                          organics by making the foam, which goes to the top of the tube, and
                          so is removed from the liquid. Simply, it is fractional foam
                          seperation of small particles and dissolved organics. For a little
                          more info there is heaps on the web, such as:
                          <http://saltaquarium.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701.htm>

                          Now, to apply it to a wash to be distilled, a protein skimmer will
                          hopefully help remove any small particles (such as yeast and non-
                          fermetable solids) as well as any dissolved organics. I can only see
                          this as a good thing.

                          To take it even simpler, I figure you could actually use the
                          fermenter as the protein skimmer as follows.

                          1. Ferment as normal, and let settle as normal. For me, this mean 2
                          days settling at 4 degrees C, change the fermenter leaving behind
                          settled deposit, and repeat again.
                          2. At this stage, I would normally then transefer to the boiler,
                          again leaving behind the deposit. However, rather than doing this, I
                          would now transfer it to another fermenter (the first one cleaned
                          out!), leaving behind the deposit.
                          3. Now we turn the fermenter into a protein skimmer. The way I see
                          to do this, is insert a couple of limewood airstones into the wash,
                          and let it bubble furiously, The foam will go to the top. You will
                          need some weights to keep the airstones on the bottom - some
                          stainless steel would be perfect. After 30 minutes or so, the bottom
                          valve on the fermenter gets opened, and the wash goes into the
                          boiler. As the water level drops, we have the water flow going th
                          opposite way to the bubbles, so have the proper effect. Hopefully,
                          all the foam stays up the top, and we therefor have less in the
                          wash. Anyway, I will try it next wash!

                          Any thoughts/ideas/questions anyone?

                          Matt (Bris)
                        • Ackland, Tony (CALNZAS)
                          ... Just don t strip too much of the alcohol out of the wash with the air. It probably wouldn t be much loss in such a short time period anyhow. Could even
                          Message 12 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > 3. Now we turn the fermenter into a protein skimmer. The way I see
                            > to do this, is insert a couple of limewood airstones into the wash,
                            > and let it bubble furiously, The foam will go to the top. You will
                            > need some weights to keep the airstones on the bottom - some
                            > stainless steel would be perfect. After 30 minutes or so,

                            Just don't strip too much of the alcohol out of the wash with the air. It probably wouldn't be much loss in such a short time period anyhow. Could even minimise it by "recycling" the air - eg have your air intake from above the wash, and keep the lot basically still under cover.

                            Tony
                          • mattdistiller
                            ... Definitley - I would do it the same way I airate a wash before pitching the yeast - The fermenter lid is on tight, and the air hose goes through the
                            Message 13 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Just don't strip too much of the alcohol out of the wash
                              > with the air. It probably wouldn't be much loss in such
                              > a short time period anyhow. Could even minimise it by
                              > "recycling" the air - eg have your air intake from above
                              > the wash, and keep the lot basically still under cover.

                              Definitley - I would do it the same way I airate a wash before
                              pitching the yeast - The fermenter lid is on tight, and the air hose
                              goes through the grommet which holds the airlock - that way there is
                              minimal losses through the tiny hole - and the air pump sits straight
                              on the lid, so therefor pumps the alcohol vapour back in anyway!

                              So what do you think of the idea as a whole?

                              Matt (Bris)
                            • AuntyEthyl
                              Matt, Thanx for the excellent rum posts.. Just one more question... (There s always one) De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in the column, did
                              Message 14 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Matt,

                                Thanx for the excellent rum posts..

                                Just one more question... (There's always one)
                                De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in
                                the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top or
                                spread throughout the column.?

                                And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on what
                                difference it would make having the scrubbies at top,
                                bottom or spread out through the column, would make to
                                the product.?

                                AuntyEthyl



                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
                                http://sports.yahoo.com
                              • mattdistiller
                                ... One? Or two? ;-) ... They were packed as normal, so there was an empty space at the top doing not much . ... Um.... Tony? ;-) My guess... If the
                                Message 15 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Just one more question... (There's always one)

                                  One? Or two? ;-)

                                  > De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in
                                  > the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top or
                                  > spread throughout the column.?

                                  They were packed as normal, so there was an empty space at the top
                                  doing 'not much'.

                                  > And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on what
                                  > difference it would make having the scrubbies at top,
                                  > bottom or spread out through the column, would make to
                                  > the product.?

                                  Um.... Tony? ;-)

                                  My guess...

                                  If the scrubbers were spread over the whole column, I think the
                                  purity would be higher than if they were packed as 'normal', and so
                                  leaving an empty space. My logic for this,is that there is still a
                                  good surface area for reaction, and hence no 'wasted' space. In the
                                  normal packing, while the surface are is more per unit volume, it
                                  doesn't have the height.

                                  The empty space at the top or bottom in the 'normal' packing
                                  density.... I think the gap would be better at the top. At the
                                  bottom it becomes just a part of the boiler in effect, so therefor
                                  doesn't do anything. When the space is at the top, while there is
                                  no 'reaction' occuring at the top, there is space for the purified
                                  vapours to sit, and so I feel would be more use for it at the top
                                  than the bottom.

                                  That all said, I don't really know - Feel free to diagree with me!

                                  Matt (Bris)
                                • Tony & Elle Ackland
                                  ... likewise, I d just be guessing. The theory doesn t help here. Can t really say whether the gap would be better top or bottom - you can dream up arguments
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > Um.... Tony? ;-)

                                    likewise, I'd just be guessing. The theory doesn't help here. Can't
                                    really say whether the gap would be better top or bottom - you can dream up
                                    arguments for either case.

                                    I'd rather that the remaining scrubbers were instead spread out more
                                    sparsely, to fill the volume. Its likely to give a lesser efficiency than
                                    a properly packed column, but might (??) be better than a half-n-half
                                    version, as its still encouraging the liquid to drip from spot to spot,
                                    rather than doing a big rush through the unpacked space. It also just
                                    gives a bit more physical space for any different species / concentrations
                                    to stay apart from each other.

                                    Coupled with this though has to be how much you've decreased the reflux
                                    ratio by - for an example, if you dudn't remove much packing, and kept the
                                    reflux rate high, you may not notice much "detuning". When I run my still
                                    for rum, I keep the same packing in it, but really knock back the reflux
                                    ratio heaps - like you - into the high 70's (C)

                                    Tony
                                    http://homedistiller.org
                                  • AuntyEthyl
                                    Hi again Matt, Thanx yet again for an excellent reply. I agree with what you said as far as de-tuned packing placement is concerned. I just had *one* more
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi again Matt,

                                      Thanx yet again for an excellent reply.

                                      I agree with what you said as far as de-tuned packing
                                      placement is concerned.

                                      I just had *one* more question..

                                      As column packing height has a direct correlation to
                                      the number of theoretical plates, what was the height
                                      of your packing in your 50mm column.?

                                      Cheers
                                      AuntyEthyl

                                      --- mattdistiller <distiller@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Just one more question... (There's always one)
                                      >
                                      > One? Or two? ;-)
                                      >
                                      > > De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies
                                      > in
                                      > > the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top
                                      > or
                                      > > spread throughout the column.?
                                      >
                                      > They were packed as normal, so there was an empty
                                      > space at the top
                                      > doing 'not much'.
                                      >
                                      > > And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on
                                      > what
                                      > > difference it would make having the scrubbies at
                                      > top,
                                      > > bottom or spread out through the column, would
                                      > make to
                                      > > the product.?
                                      >
                                      > Um.... Tony? ;-)
                                      >
                                      > My guess...
                                      >
                                      > If the scrubbers were spread over the whole column,
                                      > I think the
                                      > purity would be higher than if they were packed as
                                      > 'normal', and so
                                      > leaving an empty space. My logic for this,is that
                                      > there is still a
                                      > good surface area for reaction, and hence no
                                      > 'wasted' space. In the
                                      > normal packing, while the surface are is more per
                                      > unit volume, it
                                      > doesn't have the height.
                                      >
                                      > The empty space at the top or bottom in the 'normal'
                                      > packing
                                      > density.... I think the gap would be better at the
                                      > top. At the
                                      > bottom it becomes just a part of the boiler in
                                      > effect, so therefor
                                      > doesn't do anything. When the space is at the top,
                                      > while there is
                                      > no 'reaction' occuring at the top, there is space
                                      > for the purified
                                      > vapours to sit, and so I feel would be more use for
                                      > it at the top
                                      > than the bottom.
                                      >
                                      > That all said, I don't really know - Feel free to
                                      > diagree with me!
                                      >
                                      > Matt (Bris)
                                      >
                                      >


                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
                                      http://sports.yahoo.com
                                    • mattdistiller
                                      I replied, but the email seems to have got lost in the ether, so I will try again. ... No problems - I am only shooting from the hip though! ... Just one? ;-)
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Mar 5, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I replied, but the email seems to have got lost in the ether, so I
                                        will try again.

                                        > Thanx yet again for an excellent reply.

                                        No problems - I am only shooting from the hip though!

                                        > I just had *one* more question..

                                        Just one? ;-)

                                        > As column packing height has a direct correlation to
                                        > the number of theoretical plates, what was the height
                                        > of your packing in your 50mm column.?

                                        Normally, for vodka, my column is packed to 1.2 m with 18 large
                                        scrubbers. For the 'de-tuned' run, it is 0.9m with 12 scrubbers.

                                        I think not only is the packed height important, but also the packed
                                        density. If it is assumed that all s/s scrubbers have similar thread
                                        sizes, this can easily be calculated by weighing the scrubbers, and
                                        calculating the volume of the packed height. Density=weight/volume.
                                        If the assumption that all s/s scrubbers have similar thread sizes is
                                        true, then the density is directly proportional to the surface area,
                                        but a lot easier to calculate!

                                        My scrubbers weigh 14.1g each (I just weighed them all and divided it
                                        out), so 18 scrubbers weigh 0.2546kg and 12 scrubbers weigh 0.1697kg.

                                        The volume of the 50mm column is easy = pi * r^2 * height
                                        1.2m - volume=0.002356 m^3
                                        0.9m - volume=0.001767 m^3

                                        So the density=weight/volume:
                                        1.2m with 18 scrubbers = 108.1 kg/m^3
                                        0.9m with 12 scrubbers = 96.1 kg/m^3

                                        So, in my case, the 1.2m packing height, whilst being higher packed,
                                        is also more densely packed (=more surface area) - I guess because
                                        the weight of the scrubbers compress the ones below? Whatever the
                                        reason, the difference is over 10%, so there could definitely be an
                                        effect.

                                        I see a really neat experiment that could be done here, with the same
                                        packed height column, and different densities (=surface area) of
                                        scrubbers. There has to be an optimal packing density (=surface
                                        area), which would probably be fairly easy to work out through
                                        experimentation.

                                        OK. Enough from me. I hope that answers your question in a long
                                        handed way!

                                        Matt (Bris)
                                      • Tony & Elle Ackland
                                        ... Hurray ! something a bit more precise than the breath through test Tony
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Mar 6, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > I see a really neat experiment that could be done here, with the same
                                          > packed height column, and different densities (=surface area) of
                                          > scrubbers. There has to be an optimal packing density (=surface
                                          > area), which would probably be fairly easy to work out through
                                          > experimentation.

                                          Hurray ! something a bit more precise than the "breath through" test

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