Doug's continuous distillation

Alcohol is an inexpensive, clean and renewable fuel source.

Moderator: Site Moderator

drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »



I'm into fuel for your car. My methods are NOT appropriate for drinking.

2 gallons per hour from 10 percent wash.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

Why is your packing material secret?
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

The vid is 11 years old.

I use marbles
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

drmiller100 wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:09 am The vid is 11 years old.

I use marbles
Ah, secret marbles!!

So 3800 watts with a feed rate of 25 gallons per hour?
That's 152 watts per gallon per hour. Is that correct?
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

It wouldn't run 25 gph at 10 percent beer.

20 gph was real.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

Cool, thanks for the data.
So 190 watts per gallon, per hour.

We originally used 408 watts (and still do) as a baseline for heat input. This was based on ASPEN modeling.
But then we significantly increased the capacity of the (our) two heat exchangers used to preheat the beer. We then theorized that the heat used was somewhere in the area of 330 watts per gallon. Naturally we were pleased to have increased the efficiency.

Then we got some data back from a legal operator in Tampa using 240 watts per gallon per hour. However his beer preheat / heat recovery is not optimal. When the ambient temps in his building are low because of wind and / or rain (or the like) his still becomes far more unstable. So we reckon that he could use a bit more power input and / or do a better job of recovering heat. He will soon upgrade his ability to achieve more consistent behavior.

None the less we were super impressed at the 240 watt per gallon input. Therefore your 190 watts per gallon is very impressive indeed.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

Ah, just wanted to back track on why we still do subscribe to the 408 watts.
The ability to input a bit more heat, also provides the operator with the ability to use pressure at the effluent discharge to drive waste ( on the larger 12" system for example) through about 75' of hose and lift waste about 7' in the air.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
User avatar
jonnys_spirit
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3622
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:58 am
Location: The Milky Way

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by jonnys_spirit »

Is this or similar a feasible system to strip low wines for a second pot still run - not necessarily high proof but in the 30%abv range ?

Cheers,
j
————
i prefer my mash shaken, not stirred
————
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

jonnys_spirit wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 9:18 am Is this or similar a feasible system to strip low wines for a second pot still run - not necessarily high proof but in the 30%abv range ?

Cheers,
j
Not speaking for Doug or on behalf of his set up, but yes absolutely can strip. Our low wines come over at about 50% (plus or minus).
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

So I'm doing it wrong because I'm not using enough power?

I invite you to consider the work done during distillation using the physics definition of work.

I'd also invite you to calculate the watt hours to vaporize 1 gallon of ethanol. Latent heat of vaporization is how I think about it

My Still is not suitable for drinking, and it certainly won't make 30 percent. Anything less than 95 percent is not a stable system in my still.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

Also, I'm terrified whenever I hear someone purposely using any pressure in a still.

Not many people have died from stills blowing up because the re is so much great information advising against pressure.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

drmiller100 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:44 am So I'm doing it wrong because I'm not using enough power?
Huh? No silly. I am sharing with you,,, what I have done with my design based on calculations provided by an ASPEN modeling program. Never did I imply that you were doing it wrong. Don't be ridiculous. This is an information sharing platform....
I invite you to consider the work done during distillation using the physics definition of work.
Um,,,ok.

I'd also invite you to calculate the watt hours to vaporize 1 gallon of ethanol. I'm not calculating watt hours to vaporize "1 gallon of ethanol". I'm spit balling what it takes to vaporize 1 gallon of 10% beer based on the ASPEN calculations used for the 12" system. Then trying to scale down as precisely as possible (based on practical feedback) to hobby sized equipment to provide a reliable rule of thumb for power needed to vaporize a gallon of 10% beer. Any feedback / input to help anyone interested is always welcome. Latent heat of vaporization is how I think about it

My Still is not suitable for drinking, and it certainly won't make 30 percent. Anything less than 95 percent is not a stable system in my still.
drmiller100 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:47 am Also, I'm terrified whenever I hear someone purposely using any pressure in a still.
Ok. Not going to debate as such. But will say that low pressure (and high pressure) boilers are quite common in distilling. My 12" system is fed live steam from a low pressure 15 HP boiler. Everything in the system is technically open to the atmosphere. But to think that no pressure accumulates on a system with actual plates and relatively deep liquid beds is unrealistic. I mentioned the system's ability to drive effluent a distance from the immediate stilling area because waist / clutter in the immediate area is generally considered undesirable and a potential safety hazard very similar to your floor there in the video.

Not many people have died from stills blowing up because the re is so much great information advising against pressure.To be clear, there is pressure in your system. At 1:23 you use the words turbulent / violent action. What creates that? Erm, heat = pressure. Then at 2:00 it does very much appear that your effluent discharge is being pushed up hill to your bottoms HX. How is that possible? Erm,,,pressure. With respect to safety, you yourself endorse running the still unattended in your video. So please, no lecturing about safety.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

We all learn. That design was not suitable to run unattended.

I never ran any pressure in the still other than gravity amd the atmosphere Any pressure significantly changes boiling Temps which is how I monitor my system.

We disagree about pressures. Good enough.

I don't boil the 10 percent beer. I boil .3 percent beer to make steam for distillation. It is a continuous still, not a pot still.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

drmiller100 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:23 pm We all learn. That design was not suitable to run unattended.

I never ran any pressure in the still other than gravity amd the atmosphere Any pressure significantly changes boiling Temps which is how I monitor my system.

We disagree about pressures. Good enough.

I don't boil the 10 percent beer. I boil .3 percent beer to make steam for distillation. It is a continuous still, not a pot still.
All cool Doug.
Btw, I was not at all yelling (or the like) with the large text. I had never used that size before and didn't realize It would be so,,,loud.

Thanks for posting and here's the thing, there isn't that much data available on this type of system with which to help folks get comfortable with what's happening.

On this subject matter, if we can take known, proven run data and extrapolate (distill) it down to hobby scale then that helps the part of the community that wants to move toward the "continuous" type practices. Because after all these systems also do "batch" pretty well imo.

As far as pressure goes,,,listen 3800 watts and 20 gallons an hour is impressive as shit imo. Pressure in that environment is minimal.
However, faster processing speeds will require more heat input. More heat input will invariably increase pressure depending upon design.
Does your aversion to "pressure " mean that 3800 watts and 20 gph on your 3" rig should be the limit to what a hobbyist here should be allowed to discuss? Of course not.
At least it shouldn't be. And that's what these continuous threads are about. Just trying to vet the plus and minuses of the content here and connect the dots as much as possible.

Anyway, I'll stop pontificating now.
Are you still running this system as seen in the video?
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

Latent heat of vaporization of etoh. 365 btu per pound. 6 pounds per gallon.
Is about 2000 btus per gallon of ethics.

Google says 2000 btus is 586 watt hours.

So I'm claiming 2 gph of etoh on 3800 watts. The way I look at it the only real work I'm doing is converting 2 gph of ethanol to vapor at the very top of the column.

And of course heating room temp water to 150 degrees or so. To calculate that, 20 gallons of water is 160 pounds.

Assume we are raising the temp 80 degrees. By definition 160×80 is 12,800 btus. That is 3780 watt hours

Oops. There certainly is a lot of energy to warm up that water! I sure hope my still waste temp is Lower than 150!!!!

Ps. Water is 970 btu per pound amd is 8 pounds to the gallon.. Vaporizing water takes a LOT of energy.
970×8×20 gallons is 155,000 btus for 20 gallons.

That converts to 45,000 watts.

Your 15 hp boiler is 110,000 watts.

Boiling all that water to extract the Ethanol is clearly not very efficient. It is a LOT more efficient than a pot still though.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

Mate, 500, 000 BTUs = 14.94 bhp
Similarly, 500,000 BTUs is nearly 147,000 watts.

I arrived at 408 watts per gallon per hour because ASPEN specified 500,000 BTU/h at a feed rate of 350 gallons of 10% beer per hour with finished spirit coming off at 32 gph at 160 proof.
In practice however we found that the system processes only 265 gallons of 10% beer with finished spirit coming off at 26 gph.

These above discrepancies in what the extremely expensive modeling program said would happen vs what has happened in practice is why I am interested in everyone's experience. Practical data always trumps theoretical outcomes.

Even if the 408 watts per gallon per hour is a superfluous amount of heat to have on hand, the ability to drip alcohol in 10 minutes, shut down in 5 min, do 4 barrels of finished spirit in a single shift is far and away more efficient ( in utility and man hours) than a batch still that can do a commensurate volume in a single shift.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

Sizing is really important. For a given packing material, amd a given column size there is only so much liquid the column can handle.
Yes, you can use really inefficient plates with ridiculous huge holes and it won't plug or blow out the top.

Or you can use efficient packing and spend a LOT OF time testing to figure out how many gph it will take. Once you find the sweet spot Adding more energy to the bottom will not make it faster. It will just change things.

As an example, on my still incoming beer knocks down the vapors and preheated the beer. If I added more heat, real soon the beer won't knock down the vapors and I would require extra cooling.

If someone had a reflux still with 8 plates with huge holes in it could they expect 190 proof from a 10 percent wash at a good rate?

Would my 36 inch marble pot reflux Still make 190 product faster given same heat? Of course.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

Respectfully, one of us is off.

One horsepower is 745 watts. It is a basic definition.

I also used this website.
https://www.convertunits.com/from/hp/to/Btu/h


I am often wrong and very much appreciate this discussion!!!

Also, I am breaking some of the rules. Hell, continuous small distillation is breaking the rules!!!!!
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

There is HP and then there is BHP,,,respectfully.

In a nut shell (notwithstanding some very specific,,,specifics) any system is more specifically best at producing a set amount of proof gallons. Deviating too far away from the system's sweet spot is just asking for bad still behavior.

Design concessions have to be factored when designing a still that has to cope with grain in solids.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

Huh. I'd never heard of boiler horsepower. 500,000 btu is a LOT!!!

thanks!!!!

So, I've read on this forum about grain in solids. What is that?
If I make a wash from corn the wash is cloudy, amd there is left over solids in the bottom.

The cloudy is because there are solids suspended in the liquid. I filtered by not sucking up the big chunks on the bottom, but the cloudy suspended solids processed fine through the marbles.


What is ASPEN?
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
Saltbush Bill
Site Mod
Posts: 9643
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Northern NSW Australia

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by Saltbush Bill »

drmiller100 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:23 pm That design was not suitable to run unattended.
No still of any type or design is deemed suitable to be run unattended on this forum.
Any further mention of such is likely to end in the subject being locked or Deleted.
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

drmiller100 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:03 pm Huh. I'd never heard of boiler horsepower. 500,000 btu is a LOT!!!

thanks!!!!

So, I've read on this forum about grain in solids. What is that?
If I make a wash from corn the wash is cloudy, amd there is left over solids in the bottom.

The cloudy is because there are solids suspended in the liquid. I filtered by not sucking up the big chunks on the bottom, but the cloudy suspended solids processed fine through the marbles.


What is ASPEN?
From the company:
"ASPEN is a process simulation software package widely used in industry. Given a process design and an appropriate selection of thermodynamic models, ASPEN uses mathematical models to predict the performance of the process. This information can then be used in an iterative fashion to optimize the design."

With respect to grain in solids, all of the big bourbon houses ferment and distill with everyone in the pool. The grind and viscosity is very much like farina (or the like). Fowling absolutely has to be accounted for.
Some would argue that grain in makes for a more robust bourbon. Others say grain in imparts more acrid qualities. I reckon grain in simply minimizes the material handling aspect of the process. I otherwise love either approach because I have grown to embrace whiskey more than I ever thought I would.

500, 000 BTU/h is alot. But no more than it would take to run a commensurately sized batch rig.

The power calculations Manu used years ago are basically what the ASPEN program came up with years later for the smaller rig that he built. So I did feel pretty good about a "connect the dots" system similarly.

The data from Tampa, and your data help to get closer to real practical application rather than a potential over prescription. Of course design and intended outcomes can affect those calculations but the dialog certainly helps people get there brain around what's happening.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

So here's the thing, establishing a set of "rule of thumb" parameters is what we're/I am trying to do.

Naturally things don't always work out that way because calculations dont always work out or scale in a linear kind of way. However, I do feel that we as frustrated scientists and engineers (along with some qualified scientists and engineers) get bogged down with minutia at times and need to use more practical data rather than get bogged down with every last little thing. It is lazy and reckless perhaps but as mentioned we've already seen the discrepancies that were produced from a woop dee doo, super spendy, modeling program.

More after the fact data is always more tangible.
Have you made any modifications on your system since that video was made?
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

LWTCS wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:08 am So here's the thing, establishing a set of "rule of thumb" parameters is what we're/I am trying to do.
Lwtcs, I'm sorry. I came here with a chip on my shoulder and I read your posts defensively.

You were being friendly, amd I was being a dick.

A public apology.
Doug
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

No worries.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
stevea
Novice
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by stevea »

Hi Doug & LWTCS. I've great interest in small continuous stills, and this is interesting. [apologies in advance, I'm a USer, but I can barely tolerate US/imperial units an longer].

I've a list of ~17 commercial Whiskey stills and they are typically 570 Watt-hour per gallon of feed (9%ABV typical spec). They use direct steam injection [not a reboiler like Doug], and that costs ~30% extra energy [so maybe 440W-hr/gal w/ reboiler]. They likely have greater reflux than Doug, and the amount of energy needed isn't just the product vaporization, but also the vaporization of all the reflux. On a molar basis energy applied per unit product is proportional to (1+R). So you get much better energy efficiency with more plates and less reflux for the same feed & product. I assume Doug's marbles represent a lot of plates.

Purdue has a nice practical paper on fuel ethanol production: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmed ... E-117.html
but the units are horrific. This is alcohol-by-mass, not ABV, so their 90% is azeotrope, 8% by weight beer is ~10%ABV, and 0.4% bottoms is 0.5%ABV. ! And once we convert units their ~1500 BTU/lb of product for a many-plate system, translates to 251 W-hr/gal of 8%abv feed. The's various strength wash examples - between ~7.5% ABV to ~15%ABV vary from 300 up to 370 W-hr/gal of feed.

This suggests the Energy-per-feed-volume isn't a very good measure unless you specify the feed and product and reflux ratio. Energy per unit of product, or per unit ethanol might be better.
stevea
Novice
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by stevea »

Is 190 W-hr/gal of feed possible ?

That's less than the power to heat the wash to the bubble point. [~260W-hr/gal of wash], but it's possible to recoup a fraction of all waste heat in a continuous system. It seems to only take ~76W/gal-wash to vaporize the product, but of course at that first stage you must vaporize a lot of mols of water too.

Another approach. Looking at a VLE curve, at 10%ABV (0.033 mol fraction(mf)) the vapor mf is <0.25. So the initial vaporization of 1 mol of EtOH means vaporizing another 3 mol of water. Of course the ratio get worse as the feed ABV declines. So a gallon of azeotropic product has 63 mol of EtOH, and we need to initially vaporize another 189mol of water to get there. Total energy of vaporization is more than ... 2809W-hr/gal of product, or 281W/gal of feed!

Some ChemE text must describe how much energy is needed to boil a 10%ABV soln down to ~1%ABV, but it should be more that the lower-bound estimate in the previous paragraph.

*Maybe* you could recoup enough heat to do it. I have doubts.
User avatar
LWTCS
Site Mod
Posts: 12833
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: North Palm Beach

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by LWTCS »

stevea wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:13 am Hi Doug & LWTCS. I've great interest in small continuous stills, and this is interesting. [apologies in advance, I'm a USer, but I can barely tolerate US/imperial units an longer].

I've a list of ~17 commercial Whiskey stills and they are typically 570 Watt-hour per gallon of feed (9%ABV typical spec). They use direct steam injection [not a reboiler like Doug], and that costs ~30% extra energy [so maybe 440W-hr/gal w/ reboiler]. They likely have greater reflux than Doug, and the amount of energy needed isn't just the product vaporization, but also the vaporization of all the reflux. On a molar basis energy applied per unit product is proportional to (1+R). So you get much better energy efficiency with more plates and less reflux for the same feed & product. I assume Doug's marbles represent a lot of plates.

Purdue has a nice practical paper on fuel ethanol production: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmed ... E-117.html
but the units are horrific. This is alcohol-by-mass, not ABV, so their 90% is azeotrope, 8% by weight beer is ~10%ABV, and 0.4% bottoms is 0.5%ABV. ! And once we convert units their ~1500 BTU/lb of product for a many-plate system, translates to 251 W-hr/gal of 8%abv feed. The's various strength wash examples - between ~7.5% ABV to ~15%ABV vary from 300 up to 370 W-hr/gal of feed.

This suggests the Energy-per-feed-volume isn't a very good measure unless you specify the feed and product and reflux ratio. Energy per unit of product, or per unit ethanol might be better.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point?
As a practical matter, you have to design some flexibility into the system for distilled spirits.
Achieving a target according to one's design parameters is optimal. But in practice the system has to be able to cope with various operating ranges. Especially at the boot strap, boutique size operation that always seem to be not very well capitalized.
Trample the injured and hurdle the dead.
stevea
Novice
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by stevea »

It [energy/feed] doesn't SEEM like stable design parameter w/o many other factors to describe the operating point. If you increase the reflux to compensate for more dilute feed or fewer plates, your energy/feed parameter goes up (but how much?). If you decrease reflux to make something less than azeotrope - it goes down. It captures *something* about the feed-quality & still plates - but nothing quantitative afaik.

In contrast, "energy/mol-product * (R+1)" is a stable design parameter, but you still need to determine the product parameters and the reflux-ratio for the given number of plates.

Even that ignores heat-loss, which is significant in small systems, tho' almost constant.
Fuel & vodka folk primarily consider near-azeotrope product - which simplifies their considerations.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Doug's continuous distillation

Post by drmiller100 »

stevea wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:29 am Is 190 W-hr/gal of feed possible ?

That's less than the power to heat the wash to the bubble point. [~260W-hr/gal of wash], but it's possible to recoup a fraction of all waste heat in a continuous system. It seems to only take ~76W/gal-wash to vaporize the product, but of course at that first stage you must vaporize a lot of mols of water too.+


*Maybe* you could recoup enough heat to do it. I have doubts.
In a continuous still why would you count the vaporization of water?
The Purdue paper was pretty bad. The guy missed the importance of latent heat of vaporization, but did a great job of showing the relative importance of a tall stripping section.

Obviously we disagree on the effectiveness of marbles.

What exactly does the packing do? I submit it is an insulator. 212 at the bottom, 172 at the top. Consistent vapor path, consistent liquid path. Chaos but somehow the marbles all stack ever so neatly.

Also, not all heat exchangers are equal. Some are directional and they don't average out the heat transfer Temps. They exchange them!!!!
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
Post Reply