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

Re: De-tuning.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Mar 5 2:52 PM
    • 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 2 of 19 , Mar 6 9:38 AM
      • 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.