New Packing

Post your builds here.

Moderator: Site Moderator

Hound Dog
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:45 pm
Location: Hounds Hollow, VA

Re: New Packing

Post by Hound Dog »

I missed what sort of still are you running this in?
LM Still Operating Instructions
Cranky's New Distiller's Advice
Using Google Search

Drinking Rum before noon makes you a Pirate not an alcoholic.
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

Hound Dog wrote:I missed what sort of still are you running this in?
Nixon-Stone offset.
20160808063 (Custom).JPG
20160810101 (Custom) (2).JPG
20160810103 (Custom).JPG
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

reposting the specs with a decimal equivalent...well closest I could

These are the specs for Manu packing
Dimensions of the SPP :
  • 2.4mm diameter [3/32"]
  • 2 to 3 mm length [7/64"]
  • 0.25mm wire diameter [1/128"]
  • wire is stainless steel 304
I guess these are 1/20th the column (2")
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

DAD300 wrote:Once hot, SPP will take less power than you are used to. It will also take less reflux than you are used to.

You said 36" of packing...so that might be 36 Theoretical Plates...you don't really need ANY reflux.

Also...make sure your reflux is not too cold. If it is too cold (reflux condenser waste water should be ~140F) it will not penetrate the SPP and flash/flood on top.

As you heat the still, you should be able to feel the outside of the column and feel the heat rise inch by inch.When you reduce power to the boiler the extra mass of the SPP will continue to get hotter at the top for a while.
DAD, I will be running some low wines this weekend using some of Manu's tips, but before I do I was hoping to get a few answers.

1) Reflux should be returned "hot", so to ensure this, my reflux condenser output coolant should be around 140F?
2) You say that I really don't need reflux, should I maybe do a 1-1, for example set the takeoff as fast as the reflux or a 2 - 1 reflux twice as much as the takeoff? I usually do a 4-1 reflux-takeoff

I have read that refluxing not only gives a higher ABV but also a cleaner product. Whats your thoughts on that? The whole class can answer these questions too.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: New Packing

Post by der wo »

C2H5O5,
all the SPP I know is a bit larger. Mine is 4x4mm (on the Polish online-shop they say it is 4.4 x 5.5mm).

Here a copy%paste from Odin about the SPP he selled:
"The stainless steel SPP is made out of AISI 304 high grade SS. The density is 780 grams per dm3. Its dimensions are 4.4 x 5.5 mm. The SS tread they are made from is 0.24 mm in diameter. SPP’s surface area is over 1,000 dm2 per dm3, while the open space is 0.89. In other words: the material SPP is made from only occupies 11% of the space in the column. The maximum heat load SPP can take is 115 Watts per cm2. The HETP is well under 3 centimetres. Optimal energy input, when distilling with SPP, is 1,500 to 4,000 Watts. Optimal column diameter is 5 to 12 centimetres."

Also an European ebay-shop selles SPP with similar measurements.

Perhaps for a 3" or wider column a larger SPP would be better.


Too cold reflux is waste of energy, because every redistillation needs more energy. For a hot reflux you need a not undersized reflux condenser running with as little water as possible.
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
DAD300
Master of Distillation
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:46 am
Location: Southern U.S.

Re: New Packing

Post by DAD300 »

Hot is relative I guess, but the only temp I monitor is the waste from the reflux condenser. I keep it at 140F. For me...140F prevents vapor escape, minimizes water usage and stops floods at the top.

I do very little equalization compared to others. In my columns, shortly after first vapor travels to the top...it is azeo...so, I only equalize 5-10 minutes tops. The minimum reflux on my columns is 1:1. Take off is the exact same size as the column dia. I will only start to increase reflux when the ABV drops.

der woo, I agree that to optimize throughput, SPP has to be sized to the column. I have three sizes. One each for a 2", 3" and 4" column. Based on the three sizes commercially available to labs. The lab offerings seem to be approx based on the rule of dia is of SPP is 1/8th to 1/10th the column diameter.

Smaller and more closed will give better HETP (more plates) but at slower throughput.
Here's the math-
Pages from [Krell, Erich.]_Handbook of Laboratory Distillation With an Introductio...(BookFi.org) r.jpg
Here's the chart-
Pages from [Krell, Erich.]_Handbook of Laboratory Distillation With an Introductio...(BookFi.org)-2 r.jpg
Here's mine for 2", 3" and 4" column-
SPP Three Sizes.jpg
I suggest that with your setup...you'll have to slow down (less power), but your take off will be azeo from first drop to water coming over.

There are lots of posts here about this.
CCVM http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... d#p7104768" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
Ethyl Carbamate Docs viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55219&p=7309262&hil ... e#p7309262
DSP-AR-20005
User avatar
DAD300
Master of Distillation
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:46 am
Location: Southern U.S.

Re: New Packing

Post by DAD300 »

"I have read that refluxing not only gives a higher ABV but also a cleaner product. Whats your thoughts on that?"

Cleaner (less flavor) is best obtained two ways.
1. Better fermentation- there is no substitute for happy yeast not pissing in your fermenter.
2. Re distillation, watering back to 30% between distillations. Reflux does not filter flavors in the column. It allows for more distillations, removing water and other lower alcohols.

Equipment is about one quarter of making good product. Start with good ingredients, good fermentation procedure, good distillation and great aging/finishing.

Remember even azeo is only 95.63% ethanol. If the other 3.37% tastes bad, it all tastes bad.
CCVM http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... d#p7104768" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
Ethyl Carbamate Docs viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55219&p=7309262&hil ... e#p7309262
DSP-AR-20005
Hound Dog
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:45 pm
Location: Hounds Hollow, VA

Re: New Packing

Post by Hound Dog »

4.37% 8)
LM Still Operating Instructions
Cranky's New Distiller's Advice
Using Google Search

Drinking Rum before noon makes you a Pirate not an alcoholic.
User avatar
DAD300
Master of Distillation
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:46 am
Location: Southern U.S.

Re: New Packing

Post by DAD300 »

Ah, it's even worse than I thought!
CCVM http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... d#p7104768" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
Ethyl Carbamate Docs viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55219&p=7309262&hil ... e#p7309262
DSP-AR-20005
User avatar
skow69
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:03 am
Location: Cascadia

Re: New Packing

Post by skow69 »

All good advice, DAD.

I have logged many hours, over the years, staring at that chart, Fig. 345. It is a little more clear with the math page to preface it, although I will have to read it several more times. There is far more there than I can absorb in one pass.

Can you give me a reference for the source article? I can see it must be enormous, but I would be interested to see the whole thing.

EDIT: Scratch that, DAD. I found it. Duh!

Here is the link for anyone interested.http://books.google.com/books?id=pfRoaG ... &q&f=false

It's only $58.36 from Google. I think I will see what I can learn from the preview.
Distilling at 110f and 75 torr.
I'm not an absinthe snob, I'm The Absinthe Nazi. "NO ABSINTHE FOR YOU!"
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

DAD300 wrote:Super cooled (too cold) reflux will cool the SPP on top and cause a pool of liquid only at the top. .
der wo wrote:Too cold reflux is waste of energy, because every redistillation needs more energy
rad14701 wrote:That dreaded shock cooling effect rearing its ugly head again which causes vapor collapse in the top portion of the column and that liquid gets pushed back up by vapor pressure buildup...
Guys would you please stop this @#$%%^@^% ?
You cant have more reflux than full reflux and the SPP is rated 1.9 kw at full reflux. Even if the reflux was sub cooled then what ? It would heat back on the first few cm of the SPP creating more reflux downwards.
So basically sub cooled reflux = more reflux plus a few cms of packing lost. BUT In any case if the column can handle full reflux at given power then it can handle sub cooling
rad14701 wrote:It sure sounds like the SPP is WAY too small for your column... As soon as it becomes fully whetted it isn't allowing reflux to drop and vapor pressure is causing the percolation you are seeing... Trying less depth may help but I'm not overly optimistic... To work properly, SPP needs to be right-sized for the reflux column size..
You are just echoing stuff you read rad, do you even have SPP? SPP floods based on power vs column cross section area ratio. Not on column cross section area alone. In other words if you double the cross section area on a given SPP you can double the power. Just like any other packing
User avatar
still_stirrin
Master of Distillation
Posts: 10337
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:01 am
Location: where the buffalo roam, and the deer & antelope play

Re: New Packing

Post by still_stirrin »

manu de hanoi wrote:...SPP floods based on power vs column cross section area ratio...not on column cross section area alone. In other words, if you double the cross section area on a given SPP you can double the power. Just like any other packing
Thanks for chiming in manu.

But does the "size" of the SPP influence the "effective cross-sectional area" of the column? If so, would such micro-SPP as this reduce both the power input capacity and the vapor production (rate) tolerance? So, in a sense, they are inter-related, right?

It seems to me it would, but I likewise don't run SPP, I run glass marbles (much less expensive & way easier to manage).
ss
My LM/VM & Potstill: My build thread
My Cadco hotplate modification thread: Hotplate Build
My stock pot gin still: stock pot potstill
My 5-grain Bourbon recipe: Special K
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

still_stirrin wrote: But does the "size" of the SPP influence the "effective cross-sectional area" of the column? If so, would such micro-SPP as this reduce both the power input capacity and the vapor production (rate) tolerance? So, in a sense, they are inter-related, right?
you are correct, that's why the SPP is rated for a given column diam and power. But there is nothing that prevents scaling power and diam up apart from cost and the ability to stand it's weight
User avatar
still_stirrin
Master of Distillation
Posts: 10337
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:01 am
Location: where the buffalo roam, and the deer & antelope play

Re: New Packing

Post by still_stirrin »

manu de hanoi wrote:
still_stirrin wrote: But does the "size" of the SPP influence the "effective cross-sectional area" of the column? If so, would such micro-SPP as this reduce both the power input capacity and the vapor production (rate) tolerance? So, in a sense, they are inter-related, right?
you are correct, that's why the SPP is rated for a given column diam and power. But there is nothing that prevents scaling power and diam up apart from cost and the ability to stand it's weight
IC. Thanks for the clarification.

So, the OP's SPP probably was not the correct specification for his column size and boiler heat source. Hence, the difficulty in balancing the throughput and performance (heat input, reflux ratio, product output rate, and product proof).

This thread has been very informative to me, as I do not run SPP. So, I don't have the practical experience with managing it.

Thanks all.
ss
My LM/VM & Potstill: My build thread
My Cadco hotplate modification thread: Hotplate Build
My stock pot gin still: stock pot potstill
My 5-grain Bourbon recipe: Special K
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

still_stirrin wrote: So, the OP's SPP probably was not the correct specification for his column size and boiler heat source.
*If* that was the issue, I rather say the power was too much, you dont need to change the packing each time you turn the power knob, you rather adapt the power to the packing. 1.9 kw is very reasonable for a 2" column
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: New Packing

Post by der wo »

manu de hanoi wrote:
der wo wrote:Too cold reflux is waste of energy, because every redistillation needs more energy
Guys would you please stop this @#$%%^@^% ?
What is so wrong, that I got such a reaction, manu?
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
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

der wo wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:
der wo wrote:Too cold reflux is waste of energy, because every redistillation needs more energy
Guys would you please stop this @#$%%^@^% ?
What is so wrong, that I got such a reaction, manu?
it is no more a waste of energy than increasing reflux, therefore if you suddenly have sub cooling, just increase output.
In short please dont bother with reflux temperature unless your coolant supply is subject to sudden changes of temp...
User avatar
Odin
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6844
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:20 am
Location: Three feet below sea level

Re: New Packing

Post by Odin »

der wo wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:
der wo wrote:Too cold reflux is waste of energy, because every redistillation needs more energy
Guys would you please stop this @#$%%^@^% ?
What is so wrong, that I got such a reaction, manu?
I wouldn't take that personal, Der Wo.

Manu is right about "colder" reflux not being an issue. In fact it's a good thing. Creates more reflux and a bigger liquid bath at the top of the column. Deeper liquid bath creates more redistillations and better performance.

I do not agree with Manu's assessment that power is the issue. Its the column diameter to spp size ratio that's off. Your size, I would do in a 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 inch diameter column. Not more.

Bigger diameter columns need much more power to create enough reflux to create the much needed top column liquid bath. 1.9 kW is not enough. It's enough to power a 1.5 to 1.75 inch column. No more. If you run less than needed power, which makes sense, because 3 inch is too big for this size SPP, you will not get enough reflux to cover the column diameter. As a result vapor channels occur where vapors from the boiler can in one go get up to the product take-off point, compromizing ABV.

If you push more power, the smaller SPP will not drain quickly enough. And column blockage and resulting flooding occurs.

If you want to size it's better to go bigger. Bigger SPP is heavier and has more latent heat capacity. Makes for a very stable run.

Regards, Odin.
"Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself." by Buddhist filosofer Daisaku Ikeda.
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

Odin wrote:Bigger diameter columns need much more power to create enough reflux to create the much needed top column liquid bath. 1.9 kW is not enough. It's enough to power a 1.5 to 1.75 inch column. No more. If you run less than needed power, which makes sense, because 3 inch is too big for this size SPP, you will not get enough reflux to cover the column diameter
1.9kw is for a 2" column, not too far off from this post Odin where you mentionned that 2kw was optimal for a 2" VM:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=41123#p7099361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
User avatar
Odin
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6844
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:20 am
Location: Three feet below sea level

Re: New Packing

Post by Odin »

Yep, 2.0 is the minimum for a 2 inch column. I found out that running it on 2.6 to 2.8 kW works better. My experience with 4.5 to 5.5 mm big SPP, Manu.

Not wanting to deviate too much from the OP's intention, but I am currently testing a 3 inch diameter column with 10x10 mm SPP. Works great on 3.5 kW.

I also tested the same 10x10 mm Big SPP in a 5 inch column and that works just as amazing. It only flooded when I pushed 18 kW into the column, which is a totally rediculous amount, because on 10.8 kW and on a 20% charge, it produced 16 to 18 liters per hour already.

In my 8 inch column I put 15x15 mm.

Putting the smaller SPP (4.5 x 5.5 mm) in a 4 inch column didn't work for me. Normally I'd use 9 kW without problems, here 6 kW already caused flooding.

Just sharing my experience.

Odin.

PS: Not sure my bigger SPP desierves that name. It's not spiral, but more like round springs that are tightly wound.
"Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself." by Buddhist filosofer Daisaku Ikeda.
rad14701
retired
Posts: 20865
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:46 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: New Packing

Post by rad14701 »

manu de hanoi wrote:<SNIP>
rad14701 wrote:That dreaded shock cooling effect rearing its ugly head again which causes vapor collapse in the top portion of the column and that liquid gets pushed back up by vapor pressure buildup...
Guys would you please stop this @#$%%^@^% ?
You cant have more reflux than full reflux and the SPP is rated 1.9 kw at full reflux. Even if the reflux was sub cooled then what ? It would heat back on the first few cm of the SPP creating more reflux downwards.
So basically sub cooled reflux = more reflux plus a few cms of packing lost. BUT In any case if the column can handle full reflux at given power then it can handle sub cooling
rad14701 wrote:It sure sounds like the SPP is WAY too small for your column... As soon as it becomes fully whetted it isn't allowing reflux to drop and vapor pressure is causing the percolation you are seeing... Trying less depth may help but I'm not overly optimistic... To work properly, SPP needs to be right-sized for the reflux column size..
You are just echoing stuff you read rad, do you even have SPP? SPP floods based on power vs column cross section area ratio. Not on column cross section area alone. In other words if you double the cross section area on a given SPP you can double the power. Just like any other packing
Yes, manu de hanoi, I do have SPP here that was supplied by one of our members... I am not echoing anything I have read... Do you think I have no experience at all in the hobby...??? Perhaps you should ratchet it down a bit... I spend far more time here in these forums than you do and have a far better handle on what does and doesn't happen here... I also have close to 40 years of practical experience... If you don't think it is possible to cold choke a reflux column then perhaps you are the one lacking experience... Just sayin... Maybe you just got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

rad14701 wrote: Yes, manu de hanoi, I do have SPP here that was supplied by one of our members... I am not echoing anything I have read... Do you think I have no experience at all in the hobby...??? Perhaps you should ratchet it down a bit... I spend far more time here in these forums than you do and have a far better handle on what does and doesn't happen here... I also have close to 40 years of practical experience... If you don't think it is possible to cold choke a reflux column then perhaps you are the one lacking experience... Just sayin... Maybe you just got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...
what size of SPP do you have ? and on which column diameter have you tried it ?
Last edited by manu de hanoi on Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

Odin wrote:Yep, 2.0 is the minimum for a 2 inch column.
no odin you wrote 2kw was optimal for SPP on 2" that's very different from the word minimum. Do you mean you were wrong back then, but now you are right ? Please be clear
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

The reason I'm mad is that I dont have time to dispel all the myths and folk tales of HD, I came here to support one customer running my SPP that I have tested to work successfully under certain conditions but now he's being confused by an out pour of half truths and hearsay.

-The 1/10th of the column diameter for SPP rule was originally reported by Dog's master or Odessit on AD, when asking him where it came from, he told me it came from one dude on the russian forum, I checked and it's true, that's it, *one dude* initially reported the size of SPP had to be 1/10th of the column diameter on the Russian forum and now you guys parrot this without any proper comparative study ever being posted on HD (the paper posted by DAD3000 above on this thread does not state the 1/10 th rule if you wondered).

-The fluidized bed story is worse,
Edit: Fluidized bed refers to a very specific state in the column, but because the name easily calls to mind an image, somehow, for some pple, the initial speculation that it occured became a hard truth in their mind that nobody bothered to rigorously check or even cared to pay attention to what fluidized bed, again a specific technical term, really meant. Odin you are guilty again

-the overcooled thing doesnt make sense, again as I explained clearly above you cant reflux more than full reflux

I do enjoy speculating at times, but when I do I dont try to pass it as a hard tested truth, I encourage you to do the same and add copious amounts of *maybes* and *although I havent checked the validity of X, I once read a dude claiming that x * in the posts above.
Regards
Last edited by manu de hanoi on Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Odin
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6844
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:20 am
Location: Three feet below sea level

Re: New Packing

Post by Odin »

manu de hanoi wrote:
Odin wrote:Yep, 2.0 is the minimum for a 2 inch column.
no odin you wrote 2kw was optimal for SPP on 2" that's very different from the word minimum. Do you mean you were wrong back then, but now you are right ? Please be clear
You are missing the point of the size of the SPP in relation to the column diameter, Manu. Again. And it feels like you are deflecting. You want to talk power settings, while what went wrong it this: you sold a guy with a 3 inch column your SPP that's suited for a < 2 inch diameter column. Please focus and solve that issue.

Regards, Odin.
"Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself." by Buddhist filosofer Daisaku Ikeda.
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

Odin wrote:
manu de hanoi wrote:
Odin wrote:Yep, 2.0 is the minimum for a 2 inch column.
no odin you wrote 2kw was optimal for SPP on 2" that's very different from the word minimum. Do you mean you were wrong back then, but now you are right ? Please be clear
You are missing the point of the size of the SPP in relation to the column diameter, Manu. Again.

Regards, Odin.
The point is addressed plenty above, but of course if you keep dodging straight questions we may lose track of the original point, is that your goal ?
Here is what called the question, because it seems you forgot what I posted on the previous page :
EDIT:
Odin wrote:1.9 kW is not enough. It's enough to power a 1.5 to 1.75 inch column
Then I call you out on your conflicting previous claim that 2kw was optimal for a 2" SPP column and then pfshhhit dodge, redirect, dodge.

Odin wrote: what went wrong it this: you sold a guy with a 3 inch column your SPP that's suited for a < 2 inch diameter column. Please focus and solve that issue.
EDIT: my SPP works on 3" too it is rated 4 kw but anyways the op's columns is a 2"
Last edited by manu de hanoi on Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Odin
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6844
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:20 am
Location: Three feet below sea level

Re: New Packing

Post by Odin »

You are mixing up my words, Manu. I said 1.9 kW is not enough for bigger columns but great for 1.5 to 1.75 inch columns. As is your SPP size. You now make it look like I said 1.9 kW is not enough for a 1.5 to 1.75 inch diameter column. And that's not the case. If you quote, quote correctly! 1.9 kW: It's spot on for 1.75 inch column. But it is way too low for the 3 incher the OP has.

You can jiggle but you can't hide here, Manu. The SPP is too small for a 3 inch column. It creates column flooding. No, yes, is it the power? Of course, more power is more gases is more reflux, but a 3 inch column does need more power. That's a fact. Its your too small (for a 3 inch column that has - relative to that bigger amount of power too much reflux retention capacity.

Now, again, stop deflecting, and help the OP out and solve his problems. Not by throwing abracadabra at all of us. But by simply providing him with a solution.

Odin.
"Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself." by Buddhist filosofer Daisaku Ikeda.
manu de hanoi
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:06 am

Re: New Packing

Post by manu de hanoi »

Odin wrote:You are mixing up my words, Manu. I said 1.9 kW is not enough for bigger columns but great for 1.5 to 1.75 inch columns. As is your SPP size. You now make it look like I said 1.9 kW is not enough for a 1.5 to 1.75 inch diameter column. And that's not the case. If you quote, quote correctly! 1.9 kW: It's spot on for 1.75 inch column. But it is way too low for the 3 incher the OP has.

You can jiggle but you can't hide here, Manu. The SPP is too small for a 3 inch column. It creates column flooding. No, yes, is it the power? Of course, more power is more gases is more reflux, but a 3 inch column does need more power. That's a fact. Its your too small (for a 3 inch column that has - relative to that bigger amount of power too much reflux retention capacity.

Now, again, stop deflecting, and help the OP out and solve his problems. Not by throwing abracadabra at all of us. But by simply providing him with a solution.

Odin.
This is exhausting Odin you clearly wrote that
1.9 kW is not enough. It's enough to power a 1.5 to 1.75 inch column. No more.
That implies it's not enough for 2" and 3". Because 2" is above 1.75", on a previous post you mentioned that 2kw was optimum for 2". If 2kw is optimum for 2" how dare you say that 1.9 kw isnt enough for 2" ? As if a 5% deviation would matter.
I know from an email from op that the column is 2". And even if it wasnt you'd still be wrong, on a 3" my SPP will allow 4kw
User avatar
Odin
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6844
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:20 am
Location: Three feet below sea level

Re: New Packing

Post by Odin »

Exactly. 1.9 kW is not enough to power a 3 inch column packed with SPP.

Odin.
"Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself." by Buddhist filosofer Daisaku Ikeda.
C2H5O5
Swill Maker
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:56 am

Re: New Packing

Post by C2H5O5 »

First off I want to apologize for not being more specific on my posts...My Nixone Stone Offset is a 2" column, sorry again for the confusion.

2) My apologies for getting everyone fired up, although I think it's healthy and productive to debate as such, I steel feel bad.

3) I like to read and research and even if 99% of folks say one thing, I still want to hear what the 1% has to say.

4) Out of respect to Manu for being so helpful and the fact that it is his product I am trying all of his suggestions first. I have plenty of Low Wines to run. But please don't stop offering up suggestions, bottom line is if I'm stuck and someone said, "the still would run better if you shove a sparkplug up your ass"....guess what :D

5) Hopefully this thread will help others in the future.

6) I was just hoping that someone on here was running the same packing in a similar still for "Real On Hands experience". There are so many variables and it seems although SPP is a great packing material, it's a bit of a different beast than something like Scrubbers or Mesh. I have to laugh, I felt like a seasoned stiller when running my copper mesh, thinking to my self this is easy as pie, then I tried the SPP and my lack of experience (3RD SEASON) smacked me in the face.
"Carrots may be good for your eyes, but Booze will double your vision"

HD Search This helped me!
Post Reply