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

Re: Rum!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
      > 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 2 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
        > 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 3 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
          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 4 of 19 , Mar 5, 2002
            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 5 of 19 , Mar 6, 2002
              > 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.