They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Distillation methods and improvements.

Moderator: Site Moderator

User avatar
cranky
Master of Distillation
Posts: 6505
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by cranky »

They said that it could not be done,
He said, "Just let me try."
They said, "Other men have tried and failed,"
He answered, "But not I."
They said, "It is impossible,"
He said, "There's no such word."
He closed his mind, he closed his heart...
To everything he heard.

He said, "Within the heart of man,
There is a tiny seed.
It grows until it blossoms,
It's called the will to succeed.
Its roots are strength, its stem is hope,
Its petals inspiration,
Its thorns protect its strong green leaves,
With grim determination.

"Its stamens are its skills
Which help to shape each plan,
For there's nothing in the universe
Beyond the scope of man."
They thought that it could not be done,
Some even said they knew it,
But he faced up to what could not be done...
And he couldn't bloody do it! proved that he could do it!
---Benny Hill (Ok the last bit was me :moresarcasm:)

You may be wondering why I am quoting a poem by Benny Hill? Because I can't find the video DUH! :crazy:

Now Let me explain it's relevance.

The other day I made an offhand reference to the way my old Boka used to run and stated that my little Boka "would sit there all day producing 96+% except in the middle of the run the temperature would drop half a degree and I would get a quart of actual 100% pure alcohol." Which believe it or not is an honest and true statement but somebody took exception to it and said
wrote:Statements like these can discredit all comments made by normally respected members.
Quite frankly that just pissed me off because I know damn good and well what that little boka did and that I am not the only or the first member to have it happen. Many people who have had it happen are afraid to say anything because they fear they will be ridiculed. Of course since I am not one to back down when I know I'm right, respectability be damned, a bit of a discussion ensued about it and fortunately some other well respected members came forward and validated my claim.

Now for those who may be curious about how I did the seemingly impossible task of getting above azeotrope here is an explanation about it.

I have 2 boilers, a 15.5 gallon keg with a 5500W element and a 4 gallon pot with a 3,000W element and a bowl on top and connection for the column, which could be used with either the Boka or a pot head.

I'm really bad about not taking notes or not keeping them if I do take them but I found one from a small run I did on that little boka that at least shows how I ran it.

My little boka was 1.5" diameter with 42 inches of lava rock (scoria) packed section and a terribly under powered shotgun reflux condenser on top. This is why I advise people not to use shotguns on top of a boka because they are easily overwhelmed. I really don't wish to get into that argument again with people, been there, done that, I know all the theories about it and I'm tired of being told I'm full of shit when I know how things I've done worked :roll:

So anyway, my little boka's RC was under powered so I had to dial the heat back to the point it didn't push cold vapor right out the top. Apparently this somehow resulted in an optimal reflux ratio for my rig provided I took product off slowly. The other big problem with that column was it's size. At 1.5" diam. it was incredibly tediously slow.

The way I ran it was I would get it up and running and refluxing and let it stabilize like that for 20 minutes then crack the needle valve and start collecting at a half pint every 20 minutes. Once I started collecting I never closed the valve or made any other adjustments I just swapped out jars every 20 minutes, checked the temp and ABV and waited for the next jar to fill. When I took notes I wrote down the time it took to fill the half pint jar, the ABV of the alcohol and the temperature of the sample which was usually 60F because my liebig worked really well as a secondary product cooler and the temperature at my house is always cool.

One other factor that some people seem to think may be at play here is altitude. I live less than 300 feet above sea level. I don't know how that may effect the way things work but maybe it is a factor.

Now that all that has been explained I will talk about the run that I still have notes on. This was a 1/3-1/4 run meaning I apparently had the need for some neutral and didn't want to spend the time to do 3 or 4 ferments and 3 or 4 stripping runs and spend 16 hours sitting there watching it go drip drip drip and switching out jars ever 20 minutes. So I did a single stripping run in my keg directly into my 4 gallon pot which would usually give me around 3.5 to 3.75 gallons of low wines into the pot. I then installed the domed lid and set the boka up and ran it immediately. So that's where the run starts, switch on in a 4 gallon pot with 3.5 to 3.75 gallons of low wines. This was also before I installed the ammeter in my controller so I have no data about how much power I was using to do it :(

10 minutes after switch on the column was refluxing and rocking. I saw a post by Odin somewhere referring to rocking and don't know if he meant it was Rockin! like producing like crazy or actually physically rocking but in my case my little boka actually physically rocked. I contribute this rocking to the vapor swirling as it comes out of the boiler and into the column. I know this happens because one of the cleaning runs of my big borosilicate column was to do a sacrificial run with it assembled with no packing to keep solder flux and other contaminants from contaminating the packing. In this condition my big column can hold approximately 2-3 inches of liquid on top of the packing retainer which is a copper plate with .22" diam holes.

Yes I did a little target practice and shot the retainer to make the holes, Just kidding :moresarcasm: . I used a #2 drill bit which is .2210 diam. Why didn't I use a 1/4"? :problem: I have no idea but it was probably that I had a #2 drill bit handy at the time and not a 1/4 inch bit.

So 10 minutes in and the column was rocking gently back and forth like it always did and I started the reflux timer. 20 minutes later I started collecting. I didn't bother taking a reading on the first jar since that was the fores and tossed. Every other jar was collected at 1/2 pint every 20 minutes. The first jar came off at 90% at 172.2F, then the temp stabilized at 172.0F and the second jar came off at 94%. I will note my vapor temperature readings may be a bit off because I use a cheap Harbor Freight thermometer and I don't really care because all I'm looking for is a point of reference and rise in temp to tell me when tails start coming through. Product temp readings were taken with a thermometer double checked against 2 other thermometers for accuracy.

Once the temp stabilizes at a vapor temp of 172.0F it sits there until the phenomenon happens. Through this run when the vapor temp is 172.0F my notes say the next 5 samples were 60F at 96%, which actually meant azeo at 95.6%. Then 2 jars before the temperature drop I wrote down 172.0 @ 97% @ 60F so it was showing signs that the ABV had started to creep above azeo and the temp drop was about to happen. The next jar is also 172.0F and 97% @ 60F. Then the vapor temp dropped to 171.7. I know that .3 degrees doesn't sound like much but it actually means a whole lot. When that .3 degree F temp drop happened it meant the impossible just happened and magical elusive elixir was coming off. That one jar measured 100% @ 60F. In instances where this happened and for some reason the sample was even slightly warm and that temp drop happened it wouldn't even float the hydrometer so a temperature correction wasn't even possible but after it happened a few times I understood what the temperature drop meant and didn't feel the need to even measure it except to sit there and go WOW!!!! :esurprised:

On the next jar the temp came back up to 171.9, this always happened after the temp drop, the vapor temp always went up to 171.9 and not 172.0 after the temp drop was over. It then stayed there for the next 3 jars all of them showing 96% @ 60F. Then the temp started to show a slight rise to 172.9 @ 94% @ 60F. The next jar had the big temp increase and ABV drop at 192.4F @ 80% @ 60F. The next jar was the last one at 209.5F @ 75% and the run was over by that time because the distillate coming out had virtually no alcohol left in it.

On bigger runs I would get a proportionately larger cut of the pure stuff. I know I should have taken pictures of the thermometer and hydrometer as soon as I collected it for proof and the next day when it had come back down to azeo for someday when I dared to mentioned it and got ridiculed but didn't. :?

Yes after leaving the high ABV jars open to air overnight the ABV would drop back down to 95.6.

This is how every run on that little boka happened, it always did that temp drop and purity increase at the same point in a run and it became a matter of routine whenever I ran it. However it didn't take me long to tire of running the little boka and build something capable of completing a big run in 6-7 hours Vs 16-17 from switch on to switch off and the boka was packed away and neglected. Eventually I cut it up to send a section to a member who wanted to try a drop in shotgun in a 2" boka and some other projects. I think I still have most of the parts and if I came across another 24" section of 1.5" pipe it could be resurrected but I really have no desire to do so. With my big CM I gave up a very small percentage on the purity but gained a huge speed advantage and don't plan on going back.

Now that you have read all of that, if you want to ridicule me and say my alcometer is off or that by posting this I discredit myself and invalidate every post I've ever made, save it :silent: , I don't need the argument. Many scientists have had their careers ruined over the years by other scientists with narrow minded ideas not willing to challenge the norm only to later be proven right, usually many years after their death. If you refuse to believe my results, fine move on. If you wish to speculate on why it happened I welcome that. One idea was that somehow a vacuum formed inside the column while it runs, or something like that, LWCTS explains that idea much better than that on another thread
LWTCS wrote:Thinking that a precisely dialed in RC could to some degree prematurely collapsed rising vapor. The vapor collaps can create a vacuum like condition at that moment?
Maybe it is something about the lava rock, maybe the way it holds onto the liquid or maybe there is some impurity in the lava rock that reacts to the water to dry the alcohol out, I don't know, I am just documenting it and putting it out there so when others run across it maybe they will be willing to talk about it and we can actually learn something and prove that we can do it, rather than insisting that it can't be done.
DeepSouth
Swill Maker
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:28 am

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by DeepSouth »

If you want to keep trying this and validate this phenomena, go to cole Parmer website and get a calibrated hydrometer on the range of 180 proof to 200 proof. The cheapo ones most folks use from 0 to 200 proof are woefully inaccurate. A good calibrated one like this that is certified by the TTB is about $60

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Rich Grain Distilling Co., DSP-MS-20003
http://www.richdistilling.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
https://www.facebook.com/richgraindistillingco/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
googe
retired
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: awwstralian in new zealund

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by googe »

your a lucky one to have experienced this cranky :thumbup: best ive achieved is 96.5 nudging 97 at about 4-5lph on my split columns using lava. that was off the parrot and once temp corrected was around 94.5. if it was the temp correction or Meniscus i dont know.
Here's to alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
"Homer J Simpson"
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by thecroweater »

OK but when you don't understand what you are seeing and test it with two other hydrometers got get very similar results there are two conclusions to draw. One is that you have an anhydrous ethanol that all hydrometers are inaccurate by the same almost in the same direction, that is possible but not plausible . I know you can get alcometers that are calibrated between 90 and 100% ABV but the average guy is not going to buy one.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by der wo »

Cranky,
what I don't understand of your run: Why don't you get much lower temp for the first jar? Don't you have foreshots?
The foreshots cause at my neutral runs always a lower temp than the water-ethanol aceotrope. But while collecting them, the temp rises of course. If I have only 95% or 95.6% after that, I don't know. I don't think my alcoholmeter works such exactly (I have also a better one 30-60% for proofing).
What I often recognized is, that later in the run I am able again to reduce the vapor temp by 0.1°C. Of course only with slow dripping. But I am surprised always. For example I collect the hearts at 78.1°C and then after a while I realize I could also collect at 78.0°C. I thought perhaps it is the lower vapor production later in the run. I don't know.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
NZChris
Master of Distillation
Posts: 13062
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:42 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by NZChris »

thecroweater wrote:I know you can get alcometers that are calibrated between 90 and 100% ABV but the average guy is not going to buy one.
I guess the set of ten from 0 to 100 we were using the other day was bought by an above average guy then?
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by der wo »

thecroweater wrote:I know you can get alcometers that are calibrated between 90 and 100% ABV but the average guy is not going to buy one.
In my country the calibrated ones with only 10% measuring range cost about 150$. Accuracy 0.1vol% or better. The same not calibrated but "can be calibrated" cost 50$. They are 44cm long, much longer than the normal ones. They are obligatory, if you sell your spirits in my country.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by thecroweater »

NZChris wrote:
thecroweater wrote:I know you can get alcometers that are calibrated between 90 and 100% ABV but the average guy is not going to buy one.
I guess the set of ten from 0 to 100 we were using the other day was bought by an above average guy then?
I don't understand the statement/ question/ rhetoric what ever. Yes 99.999r are 0 to 100% , the average guy is not going to spend money on high dollar hydrometers with small accurate specific ranges .
Apologies if I misunderstand but you have said the same thing as me but worded it (to me) as if you are disagreeing :?
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
NZChris
Master of Distillation
Posts: 13062
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:42 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by NZChris »

The set is 10 hydrometers in 10% increments and was not very expensive, certainly not when compared to how much average hobbiests spend on their stills.

I'm sure my own 70-100% certified Alla that I bought in my local HBS would be up to the task too. The 23mm between 95.6 and 100 is easy to read.
User avatar
bitter
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:51 pm
Location: Great White North

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by bitter »

Interesting. Subscribing.. be interesting to get that happening with my setup.

B
User avatar
cranky
Master of Distillation
Posts: 6505
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by cranky »

Thanks for posting guys :D Hopefully I can answer a few things or at least respond
DeepSouth wrote:If you want to keep trying this and validate this phenomena, go to cole Parmer website and get a calibrated hydrometer on the range of 180 proof to 200 proof. The cheapo ones most folks use from 0 to 200 proof are woefully inaccurate. A good calibrated one like this that is certified by the TTB is about $60
While speculation about the inaccuracy of a hydrometer when taking a reading is valid it would not explain why a sample taken that read 95.6% stayed at that 95.6 when left overnight but the samples pulled above that would return to 95.6 when left overnight. If it were the hydrometer giving a false reading the sample should have stayed at the false reading rather than return to the same reading as the other (azeo) samples.

As far as buying a calibrated hydrometer that's way beyond my budget, but then everything right now is beyond my budget and I really don't plan on resurrecting the little boka any time soon and sitting through those long long runs just to do some testing. Time is too short right now to even consider it.
googe wrote:your a lucky one to have experienced this cranky :thumbup: best ive achieved is 96.5 nudging 97 at about 4-5lph on my split columns using lava. that was off the parrot and once temp corrected was around 94.5. if it was the temp correction or Meniscus i dont know.
Thank you Googe, at the time I really didn't realize exactly how uncommon the phenomenon is or I may have done more documentation. I guess I was very fortunate to make that under powered RC that forced me to run a certain way, it's kind of funny really but weird things happen to me all the time :crazy: I believe if I ran a parrot the results would have been much less noticeable due to smearing. I think it would be a small bump but not as high.
thecroweater wrote:OK but when you don't understand what you are seeing and test it with two other hydrometers got get very similar results there are two conclusions to draw. One is that you have an anhydrous ethanol that all hydrometers are inaccurate by the same almost in the same direction, that is possible but not plausible . I know you can get alcometers that are calibrated between 90 and 100% ABV but the average guy is not going to buy one.
I'm probably much cheaper than the average guy so I certainly am not going to buy one. For me the thing that tells me it was purer than azeo was that it came back down to azeo when left open to the air.
der wo wrote:Cranky,
what I don't understand of your run: Why don't you get much lower temp for the first jar? Don't you have foreshots?
The foreshots cause at my neutral runs always a lower temp than the water-ethanol aceotrope. But while collecting them, the temp rises of course. If I have only 95% or 95.6% after that, I don't know. I don't think my alcoholmeter works such exactly (I have also a better one 30-60% for proofing).
What I often recognized is, that later in the run I am able again to reduce the vapor temp by 0.1°C. Of course only with slow dripping. But I am surprised always. For example I collect the hearts at 78.1°C and then after a while I realize I could also collect at 78.0°C. I thought perhaps it is the lower vapor production later in the run. I don't know.
I think what you missed in my description is that I never bothered to record the temperature or purity of the foreshots, I would just collect the first 1/2 pint and toss it then start recording.
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

I suspect you are getting less than azeo for most of the run and the 'sweet spot' you are speaking of is closer to azeo than the rest of the run.
User avatar
cranky
Master of Distillation
Posts: 6505
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by cranky »

wiifm wrote:I suspect you are getting less than azeo for most of the run and the 'sweet spot' you are speaking of is closer to azeo than the rest of the run.
So what you are saying is you believe that azeo alcohol will drop in ABV by up to 4% to be the same ABV as a sub azeo sample right next to that sub azeo sample when left to air overnight when that sub azeo sample will not drop in ABV at all?
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

cranky wrote:
wiifm wrote:I suspect you are getting less than azeo for most of the run and the 'sweet spot' you are speaking of is closer to azeo than the rest of the run.
So what you are saying is you believe that azeo alcohol will drop in ABV by up to 4% to be the same ABV as a sub azeo sample right next to that sub azeo sample when left to air overnight when that sub azeo sample will not drop in ABV at all?
No. I am saying you have confirmation bias. You have a belief that it is possible to achieve better than azeo using standard distillation methods and your use of shitty measuring tools and unscientific methods allows you to continue this bias.

I SUSPECT you are getting less than azeo because it is the simplest explanation given the circumstances you describe.
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by thecroweater »

:lol: I agree with almost everything you post this maybe not so much. I can not talk for other folks but I had the presence of mind to use multible measuring devises, at least twice this was in the presence of another well known distiller also was at a loss to our results. Naturally our first thought was temps and then attention focused on alcometers. Could his and my three hyrometers all be out the same amount , pretty damn unlikely and tested in commercial spirits mine read pretty damn good. :thumbup:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

Azeotrope of Ethanol and Water is 95.63% by WEIGHT, not volume. This allows for ABV to go up to ~97.2%ABV
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by thecroweater »

wiifm wrote:Azeotrope of Ethanol and Water is 95.63% by WEIGHT, not volume. This allows for ABV to go up to ~97.2%ABV
if that is so then I am wiser today than I was yesterday some intensive reading to follow :egeek:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

thecroweater wrote:
wiifm wrote:Azeotrope of Ethanol and Water is 95.63% by WEIGHT, not volume. This allows for ABV to go up to ~97.2%ABV
if that is so then I am wiser today than I was yesterday some intensive reading to follow :egeek:
Let me google that for you :D
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by thecroweater »

Whale I'll beefhooked, leant new and important stuff. So ok is there a simple formula by which one might calculate abv to abw ? :eugeek:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by der wo »

Here 2015 Maritimer came up with those 97.2 instead of 95.6%.
http://w.homedistiller.org/forum/viewto ... =1&t=54724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Here a pdf with a chart SG---abw---abv
ethanol_wasser.pdf
(12.66 KiB) Downloaded 86 times
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

Edwin provides a helpful polynomial formula, which provides an approximation http://www.homedistiller.org/forum/down ... p?id=40123" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
WIski
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by WIski »

wiifm Wrote'
No. I am saying you have confirmation bias. You have a belief that it is possible to achieve better than azeo using standard distillation methods and your use of shitty measuring tools and unscientific methods allows you to continue this bias.

I SUSPECT you are getting less than azeo because it is the simplest explanation given the circumstances you describe.
Thanks for providing your logical observation. This is what I tried to say in the other thread. I really don't doubt the Op's belief's but that does not make them sound.
wiifm Wrote'
Azeotrope of Ethanol and Water is 95.63% by WEIGHT, not volume. This allows for ABV to go up to ~97.2%ABV
Yes, this is exactly what I tried to communicate in the other thread.
WIski Wrote'
Ethanol cannot be concentrated by ordinary distillation to greater than approximately 96% by weight because at that concentration, the vapor has the same ratio of water to alcohol as the liquid, a phenomenon known as azeotropy. The highest concentration of ethanol generally available for human consumption is 190 proof (95% alcohol by volume). Which is about 92.4% ethanol by weight.
The members the Op quoted to support his claim reported ABV's of approximately 97. This would fit into the acceptable range of what has been scientifically proven especially with the measuring equipment that most home hobbyists find attainable.

None of the quoted ever claimed
Cranky Wrote'
in the middle of the run the temperature would drop half a degree and I would get a quart of actual 100% pure alcohol.
NEVER EVER.......

OP, please don't make statement of what others may or may not understand. I take no offense but Bad Form mate......
User avatar
cranky
Master of Distillation
Posts: 6505
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by cranky »

wiifm wrote:
cranky wrote:
wiifm wrote:I suspect you are getting less than azeo for most of the run and the 'sweet spot' you are speaking of is closer to azeo than the rest of the run.
So what you are saying is you believe that azeo alcohol will drop in ABV by up to 4% to be the same ABV as a sub azeo sample right next to that sub azeo sample when left to air overnight when that sub azeo sample will not drop in ABV at all?
No. I am saying you have confirmation bias. You have a belief that it is possible to achieve better than azeo using standard distillation methods and your use of shitty measuring tools and unscientific methods allows you to continue this bias.

I SUSPECT you are getting less than azeo because it is the simplest explanation given the circumstances you describe.
You have no valid explanation for the sample above 95.6% to drop to 95.6% so you resort to baseless assumptions and insults.

It would seem that you have as much of a bias as you accuse me of having and are trying to take the easy way to dismiss my findings. Quite frankly you are just making assumptions that I have "shitty measuring tools" without really knowing anything about my hydrometer. The hydrometer I had at that time was not a cheap shitty hydrometer because when I first got started distilling I had a budget and actually wanted something accurate and the first thing I did when I got it was check it against samples of commercial alcohol.

You also make an assumption that I had some sort of bias before this happened and that simply wasn't true. It was after careful assessment when it happened and seeing that others had the same results that I actually came to believe it can be done.

Now your "easiest explanation" fails to explain the ABV drop of the samples that were above 95.6% when exposed to air to be equal to the samples that were taken at 95.6% without a drop in ABV of the samples taken at 95.6%. Quite frankly if it can be blamed on "shitty equipment" that ABV drop shouldn't have happened but because of your own bias you just wish to find the easiest explanation you can to dismiss anybody's findings that are different than what you wish to believe.

If you can legitimately explain everything that happened as "shitty measuring tools" fine but that explanation doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny when it comes to the ABV drop but if that's what you have to tell yourself to try to justify your own bias that's fine. Believe what you want, I really don't care if you believe it is possible but spare me the insults.
User avatar
cranky
Master of Distillation
Posts: 6505
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by cranky »

WIski wrote:OP, please don't make statement of what others may or may not understand. I take no offense but Bad Form mate......
If everybody took that advice nobody would ever post anything :moresarcasm:
DeepSouth
Swill Maker
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:28 am

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by DeepSouth »

https://www.coleparmer.com/i/h-b-instru ... cification" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Here's a link to hydrometer that is certified for use by the TTB. 185 proof to 206 proof is the range(goes up to 206 because you need an elevated range if the sample is warmer than the 60 F that the gauge is calibrated for). This thing is only $33. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Get one of these hydrometers, run your still, and see if you can replicate the phenomena and document your findings. Don't forget to take a temperature reading of the sample with a calibrated thermometer. If you can prove your claims, we all might be able to learn something and figure out why you are able to distill to higher proof than is currently thought possible by conventional means.

Just as an aside, to put some numbers in perspective, if you have a sample that is 95.6%, or 191.2 actual proof and you measure it at 70 F and your gauge is only calibrated at 60 F, the gauge would read 193.5 proof, or about 96.8 %. It's possible that your sample was slightly warm and cooled down a little bit and that is responsible for the appearance of it absorbing moisture from the air. I've got full range brew shop hydrometers that I use to ballpark a sample before I break out my certified gauges. The brew shop ones can be off by 5 or 10 points of proof sometimes.
Rich Grain Distilling Co., DSP-MS-20003
http://www.richdistilling.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
https://www.facebook.com/richgraindistillingco/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

cranky wrote: You have no valid explanation for the sample above 95.6% to drop to 95.6% so you resort to baseless assumptions and insults.
I do. I repeat - confirmation bias. You're still banging on about 95.6ABV when we have already established that Azeo if 97.2ABV
cranky wrote: It would seem that you have as much of a bias as you accuse me of having and are trying to take the easy way to dismiss my findings. Quite frankly you are just making assumptions that I have "shitty measuring tools" without really knowing anything about my hydrometer. The hydrometer I had at that time was not a cheap shitty hydrometer because when I first got started distilling I had a budget and actually wanted something accurate and the first thing I did when I got it was check it against samples of commercial alcohol.
You forgot the part where I said "unscientific methods". I've done you the favour of attaching an actual scientific document by a fellow named Herminio Brau. Among other things in it, he is able to provide a concise description of the methods used, the results and a summary. He even provides a table of data, so that others can test for themselves.

Now let's compare your observed data with his:
Who TempF ABV
cranky 172 94
Brau 173.03 93.91

Note: I have chosen Brau's closest observed ABV to 94% and had a look at the temp (173.03). Quite rightly, you pointed out that your temp of 172 is just a reference. From the data comparison, we can say either your thermometer or this published scientist Brau's thermometer is out by 1.03°F. No big deal - it is just a 'point of reference'.

Next observed data:
Who TempF ABV
cranky 171.7 100 then 95.6
Brau 172.73 96.58

Note: Temp differences remain the same, however your 'observed ABVs' are quite different to my mate Brau.

Since we are talking in points of a degree here, let's say you didn't quite read your thermometer right and you actually got a reading on your thermometer of 171.683, then from Brau's table, you would get an ABV of somewhere between 97.164 and 97.381. Do you notice how this fits with the established belief that Azeotrope of ethanol in water is ~95.6% by WEIGHT and ~97.2% by VOLUME?

Whereas you are saying 100ABV then 95.6ABV after an overnight rest.

Let me make this clear. If you got better than Azeo from your still using standard distillation methods, then gave it a rest overnight, the ABV would return to 97.2, not 95.6!
cranky wrote: You also make an assumption that I had some sort of bias before this happened and that simply wasn't true. It was after careful assessment when it happened and seeing that others had the same results that I actually came to believe it can be done.

Now your "easiest explanation" fails to explain the ABV drop of the samples that were above 95.6% when exposed to air to be equal to the samples that were taken at 95.6% without a drop in ABV of the samples taken at 95.6%. Quite frankly if it can be blamed on "shitty equipment" that ABV drop shouldn't have happened but because of your own bias you just wish to find the easiest explanation you can to dismiss anybody's findings that are different than what you wish to believe.
Mate, you've based your theory on the INCORRECT belief that Azeo is 95.6% ABV. You've observed ABVs off the still of above 95.6 and incorrectly assumed that you can do the impossible. Everything after that is CONFIRMATION BIAS! Here is a nice explanation with diagrams of the theory behind what I am telling you.
cranky wrote: If you can legitimately explain everything that happened as "shitty measuring tools" fine but that explanation doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny when it comes to the ABV drop but if that's what you have to tell yourself to try to justify your own bias that's fine. Believe what you want, I really don't care if you believe it is possible but spare me the insults.
Here's the thing, I don't need to prove you wrong. It was done back in 1957 by (you guessed it) my mate Brau. If you feel insulted, have a chat to him. In the meantime, take the time to understand the theory behind what you are doing and stop sprouting bullshit.
Attachments
technical paper no. 19.pdf
(1.62 MiB) Downloaded 85 times
User avatar
wiifm
Admin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 26, 2015 2:29 am
Location: Cairns QLD Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by wiifm »

One more thing... I suggest you put Benny's poem back to the way it belongs :moresarcasm:
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by thecroweater »

OK well as stated I've done a bit of reading and beginning to get my head around this. I don't think there is any need to make assumptions on anyone's equipment and sure as fuck there is no need to being telling folks to buy a whole bunch of shit they don't need before they are allowed to discuss something. Gosh fellas what the hell is with that. Anyway I now believe a widely held view is in fact incorrect and that is one believed by almost everybody, its right up there the taste of methanol in fores as far as misconceptions go. Anyhow I will as likely discuss ABV verses ABW
Here
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
HDNB
Site Mod
Posts: 7360
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:04 am
Location: the f-f-fu frozen north

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by HDNB »

if you want to hurt your brain for a while, here is some alcometry tables that the alcohol industry uses, courtesy the goverment du Canada
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tchncl/lchl ... u-eng.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
I finally quit drinking for good.

now i drink for evil.
User avatar
cranky
Master of Distillation
Posts: 6505
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: They Said That it Could Not Be Done

Post by cranky »

I think I'm done with this whole thing. It's pretty obvious that some people will never let a discussion of the possibilities happen. I personally believe that either there is some kind of vacuum forming inside the column combined with my low altitude to form a pressure differential or some kind of impurity in the lava rock that acts as a bonding agent for the water or something like that or both. Of course none of that matters because it is obvious some members will not hear of any such discussion at all and I have no intention of buying a certified hydrometer or resurrecting that old slow ass boka and sitting through those tediously slow runs ever again.

So lets just drop the whole thing and let this thread serve as a cautionary tail for anybody who may encounter the phenomenon to keep their mouths shut and never speak of such things again. It's just not worth the fight.
Post Reply