Lets Talk Column Packing

Distillation methods and improvements.

Moderator: Site Moderator

User avatar
bearriver
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:17 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by bearriver »

Hound Dog wrote:All of the above depending on your own rig and how you run it.
Bingo... How long is a piece of string?
Bagasso
Distiller
Posts: 1344
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:09 pm

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Bagasso »

coastershiner wrote:I have read this entire thread and aside from SPP, I cant figure out what the general concensus is for the "BEST" packing?
Some people seem to be saying that scoria outperforms SPP.
Is it lava or scubbers or basalt or scoria?!!!!
I think basalt and scoria are both lava.
User avatar
DAD300
Master of Distillation
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:46 am
Location: Southern U.S.

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by DAD300 »

A lot of "What is the best packing?" should be based on what is available to you! It might also be based on some specific ideal you have for a still. Some folks want the shortest column that makes azeo or the largest diameter for max throughput.

Where you live, what you can afford and how crafty are you at making things, makes all the difference.

Rocks from the drive way could be all some people can afford and they would be better than an empty column. Or you might have a toy store that offers cheap marbles. If you live in Hawaii, you can get free lava and break it up. Most places you can find SS or Copper Scrubbers for a buck or two a piece. It takes some effort or a lot of money to fill a column with SPP. There are guys here bringing SS metal shavings home from work for free...
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
coastershiner
Bootlegger
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:06 pm
Location: Canada, eh

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by coastershiner »

scrubbers vs lava? for 3'' copper column,for neutral
Hound Dog
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:45 pm
Location: Hounds Hollow, VA

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Hound Dog »

coastershiner wrote:scrubbers vs lava? for 3'' copper column,for neutral
I get good results with lava rock in this scenario myself. I break it up to nickel and dime size, fill the column and roll.
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
coastershiner
Bootlegger
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:06 pm
Location: Canada, eh

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by coastershiner »

I watched a vid from milehi where he was using a mixture of raschig rings and scrubbers, half and half. What are peoples thoughts on mixing packing mediums? Spp is out of the question for me at this time in my life, untill I can make it myself. But scrubbers and lava I could do, or should I go straight lava? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
User avatar
coastershiner
Bootlegger
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 5:06 pm
Location: Canada, eh

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by coastershiner »

I have 60" available for packing 3" I already have the scrubbers, so that will be first on my current vm build. But if lava is the ill, then ima try it!
User avatar
BigSwede
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:36 am

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by BigSwede »

coastershiner wrote:I watched a vid from milehi where he was using a mixture of raschig rings and scrubbers, half and half.
We were talking just above about mixed packings, and I think the physics of it is sound in that obviously differing portions of the column, when at reflux, have differing environments; temperature, vapor pressures/velocities, and above all (obviously) the ratio of ethanol to water. So it would stand to reason that packings could be "tuned" somewhat to optimize their function depending upon where they sit vertically.

Lower, I would guess heavier, coarser packing would be more appropriate, and as you rise, your % of lighter and more volatile ethanol would increase, and perhaps a finer packing, less thermal mass, greater relative surface area, might be better.

All I can say is go for it. It'd be a simple enough experiment. But you'd need controls. Several identical washes. Run 1 with just scrubbies, another just rings, then start to experiment starting with the ceramics at the base, transitioning to scrubbers. See what happens. Higher proof? Greater throughput? More flooding, less? It'd be interesting for sure.
User avatar
Tokoroa_Shiner
Distiller
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:02 am

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Tokoroa_Shiner »

After reading through this thread. I think I'll be pulling my scrubbies out and raiding my garden for the little bits of lava rocks.
Must read topics for new members

The Rules By Which We Live By
Safety And Related Issues
New Distillers Reading Lounge

Have Fun, Keep Safe and Shine On
googe
retired
Posts: 3848
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:53 pm
Location: awwstralian in new zealund

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by googe »

Make sure you flush the cat shit out toko lol
Here's to alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all life's problems.
"Homer J Simpson"
User avatar
Tokoroa_Shiner
Distiller
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:02 am

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Tokoroa_Shiner »

Will do. I've caught the neighbours cat many times shitting in my garden. Little bugger just stares at me as he does his business. Lol
Must read topics for new members

The Rules By Which We Live By
Safety And Related Issues
New Distillers Reading Lounge

Have Fun, Keep Safe and Shine On
rad14701
retired
Posts: 20865
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:46 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by rad14701 »

Tokoroa_Shiner wrote:Will do. I've caught the neighbours cat many times shitting in my garden. Little bugger just stares at me as he does his business. Lol
Thinks you're a perv for watching...!!! :lolno:
User avatar
Tokoroa_Shiner
Distiller
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:02 am

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Tokoroa_Shiner »

Haha. Probably. :lol:
Must read topics for new members

The Rules By Which We Live By
Safety And Related Issues
New Distillers Reading Lounge

Have Fun, Keep Safe and Shine On
MBF
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:15 pm

Thermal considerations...

Post by MBF »

Wow... 15 page marathon read. Awesome thread. I've got zero distillation experience, so the following comments are worth what you're paying for them. They come from my experiences in thermal design for moving heat from one place to another. And it is 0216 hrs, so I don't have the time or focus left to cover everything I've thought about or organize it effectively. Just going to make some comments and educated assumptions. (Pardon me if I don't get all the distillation grammar (read: vocabulary) correct.

1) At first, I was trying to consider SPP, lava, et al. in the same framework. I'm not so sure that is the correct way to look at it now.

2) Thermal loading: A still won't "run" until enough energy is put into the column to thermally saturate the packing material + enough extra to vaporize and fraction the wash. Right?

3) A given mass of stainless steel will certainly "hold" more energy than the same mass of porous lava (be it open/semi-open cell or closed cell). Thus, it would seem to me that all things being held constant except for the packing, SPP will require more energy expenditure prior to reaching a reflux equilibrium.

4) The SPP does intuitively seem to be functioning differently from the "conventional" model. (Internal droplet retention aka: mini boilers, et al.)

5) Lava isn't really following the same model as "scrubbers" and "wool" though either. It has a MUCH smaller thermal mass than any of the metals per given unit volume. The scrubbers and wool packings appear to be running at much higher void %.

6) Lava (intuitively) would seem to me to get "up to speed" faster at a given power input, because it "heat soaks" at lower energy levels and then all additional energy is dedicated to working on the wash (vapor/reflux condensate). I haven't watched it through a sight glass, but I can imagine that under a microscope you'd see that it has a superior surface texture (from both a total surface area (high... it'd look like one big series of mountain ranges and valleys made out of yet smaller valley and mountain ranges) and surface tension (low... very few to no places where liquids can actually bead up... the "rough" texture breaks the surface tension of liquids, even water into very small droplets.). This is where the "wetting" and "wicking" properties come from.

Now, since the lava isn't sucking a bunch of heat out of the liquids (OR shedding heat into the column structure, et al.), the liquids have to hold that heat. When vapor of a given weight reaches a point that it can condense (wet) on a packing particle, it stays extremely close to it's vaporization energy state... and it is in a thinner layer than it would be on some other packings. Even if it forms a small, visible droplet, the energy level is still very close to re-vaporization.

Thus, when some new vapor mix brushes by with a little more energy than it needs to stay vaporized, it donates some energy to that thin wet layer (or mini-drop) and strips away the lighter volatiles that are closest to it and continues up the column.

This isn't "news" to anyone here... it's basic reflux. But the cool thing about lava (and other lava-type packings) is that:

1) it is able to provide a massive increase in surface area relative to it's thermal "demands".
2) IAW, it provides more reflux cycles per column inch (relative to other metal-based packings) and does so at a lower power expenditure due to its ability to spread the condensate out in thinner layers.
3) It's cheap and readily available.
4) Most types are relatively impermeable even though they may be porous, thus they won't "crud up" internally. If it gets dirty, it can be surface cleaned relatively effectively, or simply replaced.

Note: Porosity - open/semi-open vs. closed cell in lava. My gut tells me that it is better to have a relatively closed-cell lava. While openly porous packing MIGHT offer some functionality as condensate/vapor work their way through a particle, I think the trade-off in packing retention of product/nasties and/or time/energy to "dry" the packing at end of run is a loser.

So, setting SPP aside for the moment due to cost and/or time required to fabricate it, let's look at the characteristics of an "ideal" type of lava or "lava-type" packing.

First... scrubbers and SS wool typically have voids up to 70% by volume in the column. That's a lot of dead space that can only carry vapor up, or through which only basically spherical drops of condensate may fall, and worst-case provide the potential for channeling (as a drop falls through a void, increases velocity before it hits the next piece of packing and increases in size as it strips condensate from the packing)

So what are the qualities we are looking for?

1) Uniform size or sizes (while maintaining the "natural" surface texture of the material). Ideally, we'd have spheres.

2) IF we had spheres of one or more uniform sizes, we could calculate the right radii to use to produce a desired balance between interstitial spaces/void sizes (minimal) and providing the required vapor velocity, et al. (to avoid flooding, reflux short-circuiting, etc.) But I don't think we can get lava spheres "off-the shelf" at the present.

So, we either have to:

a) settle for a single screened size of lava (based on experimentation) that maximizes performance. (with experimentation in packing installation technique to minimize interstitial spacing).
b) attempt a 2 or more screened size mixing to try and further minimize void %.
c) seek another material that has the desirable qualities of lava while also having a shape more amenable to packing homogeneously (spheres).

I've seen a couple of spherical and truncated cylinder products in this thread that are used for filtering purposes... But I am not sure that we want the flow-through porosity. I don't know if the packing efficiency would make the trade-off worth it.
AND we certainly don't want to trade a spherical shape for a smoother surface (aka: some ceramics, coated, smooth glass).

Ideas:

1) try to rock tumble raw lava to try and get more uniform shapes?
2) try to tumble small glass spheres with the proper abrasive and tumbling media to abrade them to a desirable surface texture.
3) etc...

That's it... I'm toast. Night. :)

-MBF
badbird
Swill Maker
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:47 am
Location: Gondwana East

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by badbird »

Good post MBF but I cant quite agree with your call on the closed cell vs open cell subject.

My first runs with lava rock struggled reaching azeo using a relatively closed cell version of scoria from the local garden center. Eventually after trying stuff from a number of sources, so far the best is the dark very porous kind (ie you can blow through it) with ~1mm voids. Unfortunately this one is from a landscaping yard and minimum purchase is half a cubic meter, so... the garden looks good now :D

A bit of a soak and a good rinse in a sieve with the hose then drying well in the sun takes care of cleaning if i'm not using the scoria again for a while, not sure if its all really necessary but i like to keep it clean.

Anyway only one way to prove your theory :P
MBF
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:15 pm

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by MBF »

badbird wrote:Good post MBF but I cant quite agree with your call on the closed cell vs open cell subject.

My first runs with lava rock struggled reaching azeo using a relatively closed cell version of scoria from the local garden center. Eventually after trying stuff from a number of sources, so far the best is the dark very porous kind (ie you can blow through it) with ~1mm voids. Unfortunately this one is from a landscaping yard and minimum purchase is half a cubic meter, so... the garden looks good now :D

A bit of a soak and a good rinse in a sieve with the hose then drying well in the sun takes care of cleaning if i'm not using the scoria again for a while, not sure if its all really necessary but i like to keep it clean.

Anyway only one way to prove your theory :P
I may be completely wrong thinking on the porosity deal... And/or perhaps larger pores do add something more than they potentially detract... Need to check into what's available to me at all the landscaping places, HD, et al. around me.

'Course, I'd be better served for now by designing and getting my still built. ;)
Last edited by MBF on Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
badbird
Swill Maker
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:47 am
Location: Gondwana East

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by badbird »

A still is always handy :wink:
Was in a BBQ place the other day and the scoria they had for the drip tray?? looked excellent, would need breaking up but was nice and light weight with big voids.
Didn't try and get any out of the bags and blow through it, probably not a good look :shifty:

It would be a good solution if you don't want to landscape the yard as well :)
User avatar
BigSwede
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:36 am

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by BigSwede »

MBF, how did you determine the MASS of a particular packing? That of course will affect your thermodynamic calculations.
MBF
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:15 pm

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by MBF »

BigSwede wrote:MBF, how did you determine the MASS of a particular packing? That of course will affect your thermodynamic calculations.
Hey there, BigSwede! Was reading on one of your threads today. ;)

Just to be clear, I haven't done any hard math on packings. My earlier post is a "thought/theory" based on prior experience in thermal design apps I've worked on, etc.

I'm not exactly sure if what you are asking is as straight forward as it seems.

Off course you are correct, Mass values will figure in critically in any comparison. As well as density (mass per unit volume) MASS of any packing would most easily be represented by weighing it, assuming that the different packings were going to be tested at the same altitude, and no other really significant environmental change didn't intervene.... especially at the relative mass (weight) and volumes we are dealing with.

If you are talking about comparing different packings thermodynamically, we'd need a lot more information to get any reasonably trustworthy math results. I'm not bad at math, but I'm not sure I am competent to do the theoretical math on various lava samples vs. stainless steel, et al. And I KNOW I don't WANT to do the math.... at least not yet. :)

I do think it might be possible to design some experimental setups to test packing samples to get some of the basic properties we might need to evaluate one against the other.

We can get mass and displaced volume pretty easily. We can also get an average density of the full sample arithmetically. Lava for instance, even in the same "sample" will have varying densities from piece to piece.

To test my theory (SWAG) that lava is a more thermodynamically "attractive" material than stainless (all other things being held constant), we'd need to

-find out how much energy a given packing sample can hold and derive some sort of average thermal capacity per unit volume displaced (or test the entire packing volume as installed).
-test how readily the lava sample took on energy
-test how readily the sample is willing to release stored energy
-several/many other things.

Most of the properties we'd need for stainless are likely available in reference materials already... at least values that would closely approx. a chosen sample (every alloy would differ, etc.)

But I'm not convinced that comparing lava to stainless thermodynamically is particularly useful UNLESS you simply want to figure out which one "eats more energy" and which one is most energy efficient.

As far as how stainless and lava act as packings with respect to JUST the reflux operations/performance, I think they may be operating quite differently in some/many respects... For me, at the moment, it doesn't matter, because I'm not inclined to invest the additional time and/or $$ to get SPP to use vs. the low $$ and easy access to various types of lava-type materials. Not yet anyway... Before I make my own SPP, I'd be more inclined to use the equipment I have to try and make a bunch of 6mm or less diameter roughened glass spheres to test first. You can turn on a tumbler or vibratory cleaner full of media and glass and walk away! ;)

PS - PM me if you like... on anything of course, but particularly on that plate design/location you were talking about in your other thread. I'd be interested to know how that turned out or is progressing.


But hey... I'm a noob to distilling. What do I know. :)

-MBF
Odessit
Novice
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:30 pm
Location: Odessa, Ukraine

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Odessit »

Thermal and thermodynamic properties of the materials work only when temperature is changed . Temperature in each section of column (except the lowest four inches) remains unchanged from the beginning to the end of the distillation (if the regime of distillation is correct).
We can see the difference of the materials only at the initial stage, different materials will need different times of initial stabilization.

Packing for column must to have different, conflicting properties (sorry, English is not first for me... and not second :)) .
At the stage of heads selection, paking must have a minimum retention of reflux for quit exiting of light impurities, "heads".

At the end of distillation, packing must hold as much as possible reflux to securely hold the components of fusel oil and keep them at the bottom of the column.
Therefore, the lava packing, which holds a lot of phlegm, do not cope well with the head, but perfectly catch the tail.
Scrubber packing - on the contrary, good outputs of the head, but ill "keep the tai"l.
Therefore can not be the ideal packing. We need to search an optimum.
Chromatographic analyzes of the alcohol obtained with the SPP columns decahedral form (or shape ?) , with the etched surface, confirms that this design is optimal.
Excuse me, all my posts is on-line translation.
-----------------------------
50L Keg with Heating Elements 0-4.5 kW
1.5m Column SS 2"
packing - SS SPP 3.5x3.5mm
1,8 liter/h of azeotrope
User avatar
sambedded
Trainee
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:25 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by sambedded »

Nice post, Odessit.

Давненьеко тебя невидно тут было.
CH3CH2OH
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:27 pm

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by CH3CH2OH »

Odessit wrote:Thermal and thermodynamic properties of the materials work only when temperature is changed . Temperature in each section of column (except the lowest four inches) remains unchanged from the beginning to the end of the distillation (if the regime of distillation is correct).
We can see the difference of the materials only at the initial stage, different materials will need different times of initial stabilization.

Packing for column must to have different, conflicting properties (sorry, English is not first for me... and not second :)) .
At the stage of heads selection, paking must have a minimum retention of reflux for quit exiting of light impurities, "heads".

At the end of distillation, packing must hold as much as possible reflux to securely hold the components of fusel oil and keep them at the bottom of the column.
Therefore, the lava packing, which holds a lot of phlegm, do not cope well with the head, but perfectly catch the tail.
Scrubber packing - on the contrary, good outputs of the head, but ill "keep the tai"l.
Therefore can not be the ideal packing. We need to search an optimum.
Chromatographic analyzes of the alcohol obtained with the SPP columns decahedral form (or shape ?) , with the etched surface, confirms that this design is optimal.
From all the reading I have done on this, SPP is optimal when you are talking about a 2" column, not so for a 4" column.
"Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
DAD300
Master of Distillation
Posts: 2839
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:46 am
Location: Southern U.S.

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by DAD300 »

CH3CH2OH...I believe SPP can be proportionally sized to the column. I have a 2", 3" and 4" column. And I have SPP sized for each.

With that said, the 3" (center) really hit the sweet spot better than the 2".
SPP Three Sizes.jpg
But all three have great HETP compared to anything else.
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
Odessit
Novice
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:30 pm
Location: Odessa, Ukraine

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Odessit »

CH3CH2OH., SPP-4 (1/6") works good in column 3-4", for column 1½"-2" SPP-3.5 is the best choice.
But SPP needs about 0,9-1 watts of heating for each square mm of inner tube crosssection. It is 4-4.5 kW for column 3" and 7-8 kW for colunm 4". if heating will be less, vapour and reflux will find separated ways and SPP will run poorly.
Feature of columns with SPP, they different from plate columns, or columns with lava packing, is the needing of correctly determine and accurate maintenance of the heating power. It is very important.
Excuse me, all my posts is on-line translation.
-----------------------------
50L Keg with Heating Elements 0-4.5 kW
1.5m Column SS 2"
packing - SS SPP 3.5x3.5mm
1,8 liter/h of azeotrope
CH3CH2OH
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:27 pm

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by CH3CH2OH »

That's kind of what I was getting at with not so much for a 4 inch.

My thoughts are the amount of input needed to keep the temp up in a 4" column to gain the increased HETP of SPP becomes marginal vs the reduced HETP of lava or scrubbers at a lower input level. On paper it seems beneficial but is it practical?

Please let me know if I am looking at this wrong
"Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
BigSwede
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:36 am

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by BigSwede »

Even though I make and use SPP (for my 2" and 3" columns), if I had a four inch column, I'd be making plates for it... but that's just me, nothing wrong with making an attempt at packing one. It does sound like the heat requirements will be up there, though. Hopefully, one of the more experienced guys will chime in on packing such a hefty column.
CH3CH2OH
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:27 pm

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by CH3CH2OH »

I am more looking at a packed section above a 4" plated column.
Last edited by CH3CH2OH on Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
bearriver
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:17 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by bearriver »

CH3CH2OH wrote:I am more looking at a packed section above a plated column
Over 2"? Lava rock. Proven to work well by respected members.

According to posts I have read by Odin, SPP does not perform well above plates.
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by thecroweater »

bearriver wrote:
CH3CH2OH wrote:I am more looking at a packed section above a plated column
Over 2"? Lava rock. Proven to work well by respected members.
According to posts I have read by Odin, SPP does not perform well above plates.
Ok I'm not sure i have read about Odin doing this do you have a link. I have read a few fails concerning SPP in a 4" but not as a reflux module over a plated column and thought that the right sized SPP might work ok for this if not a pricey way to go about it. Scoria/ lava stone works just fine along with some other products (for instance I am a big fan of ppl using structured copper mesh if using a stainless steel flute)
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
Odessit
Novice
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:30 pm
Location: Odessa, Ukraine

Re: Lets Talk Column Packing

Post by Odessit »

[quote = "CH3CH2OH"] That's kind of what I was getting at with not so much for a 4 inch. [/ Quote]

SPP occupies about 15% of the cross section of the column and leaves a lot of space for the flow of steam. The reflux flows down as a thin film on the surface of SPP and occupies no more then 15% too.

If the column is filled with lava, space for steam flow is much smaller, so the column of lava can not work with such a flow of steam like a column with a SPP.

[quote] My thoughts are the amount of input needed to keep the temp up in a 4 "column [/ quote]

The amount of input needed to keep the speed of steam, which does not prevent the reflux to go down, but did not give a chance for vapour and reflux to find separated ways of moving.

In this case the correct temperature in the column will be setted itself, and separative power of the SPP will be maximal.
Excuse me, all my posts is on-line translation.
-----------------------------
50L Keg with Heating Elements 0-4.5 kW
1.5m Column SS 2"
packing - SS SPP 3.5x3.5mm
1,8 liter/h of azeotrope
Post Reply