1.5 distillation?

[wpkluck]

OK, so I'm new, and there are those that love to tout their knowledge. I get it, and I'm learning. I'm trying to get to the mechanics of thump kegs. I get how they work, the lyne arm angle, pre-charge, puking. I'm very curious about those saying the product that goes thru a thumper is only a 1.5 distilled product, not double-distilled.

Distilling takes a liquid, evaporates it, in order to separate the lower BP liquid. The pot does that, AND the thumper does that. Why then, would some (not all, by the way, not even most, from what I can read) say this isn't a full distillation?

I'd hope this won't devolve into an "that's the way it is" discussion, I'm trying to illustrate the mechanics. I'd rather not focus on the peripheral issues, but if it does, let's all be respectful (and not assume facts not in evidence). I'm talking about a pot still, with a thumper. If it matters what you put in it (I can't see how, but I'm new, and open to new ideas!), state that too.

Thanks in advance for the conversation (as opposed to the expert-lecturers).

[SaltyStaves]

If you have a pot still with wash in it and you distill it into low wines, then that is a single distillation. If you return those low wines to the still and distill it once again, then that constitutes a double distillation.
If you have a thumper and the contents of that thumper have not already gone through a single pass, then you wouldn't classify that contents as double distilled by the time it exits out the condenser. Hench the 1.5.

[wpkluck]

If you have a thumper and the contents of that thumper have not already gone through a single pass, then you wouldn't classify that contents as double distilled by the time it exits out the condenser. Hench the 1.5.

I'm not following (yes, I'm that dense!). I distill it thru my pot, and then I send it directly to my thumper. The pot is the single pass, the thumper is pass #2. Not seeing any physical difference, except that the product exiting the thumper is higher proof than the product exiting the pot, the definition of distillation.

What am I missing?

[SaltyStaves]

What am I missing?

Thumpers can be used multiple ways. If you are starting with an empty thumper, then that is different to a thumper pre-filled with wash or water.

[zed255]

I'm willing to bet the 1.5 comes from the experience of the outcome, empirical evidence. The output ABV from a thumper won't be as high as going through a pot still twice. Some of the vapour entering the thumper makes it to the outlet without condensing and re-boiling, at least in full. The thumper would have to be charged to a higher ABV than the pot for the energy from the pot to get the thump to actually boil.

Most charge the thumper with water, wash, either perhaps with some feints (heads and or tails depending on how you choose the define feints) or something to boost flavour like fruit or slop / squeezin's. In any event the alcohol content of the thumper is likely low enough to not reach a boil. Sure you get a preferential condensation of water vapour and evaporation of alcohol which gets the desired result of a higher output ABV but I'm not convinced it constitutes a full distillation cycle.

So, how would one go about actually demonstrating wether or not a thumper provides a true distillation cycle or not? I'd think you'd have to have wash in the pot and low wines in the thump. Anything else wouldn't be a fair evaluation, no?

There's some talk about modelling pot still with thumper that is fairly recent, I did some cursory searching and couldn't find the thread but there's been recent discussion with actual data from real world runs. Might be worth some searching to find it.

Edit, pretty sure this is the one: https://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtop ... 3#p7640076

[NZChris]

ASFAIK, a 1.5 is putting a stripping run of low wines back into a simple pot still with another charge of wash.

In my shed, a 1.5 is seldom that and is often more like a 1.1, but I still call it a 1.5 because it's my shed and in my shed I can call anything whatever I want because I'm not trying to explain it to anyone else.

There many ways you can charge and run a thumper setup. I don't recall seeing simple names given to any of them and this is the first time I've seen someone call a thumper run a 1.5. With wash in both the pot and thumper, there might be some of the same interactions as occur in a 1.5, but it might cause some confusion if people start calling two very different distilling protocols by the same name.

[OtisT]

Here is my interpretation of why some folks may call a pot-n-thumper run a 1.5 run. (I don’t call it that. I don’t think most folks care what you call it.)

Assuming you are using a fresh ferment (not low wines).

The contents of the pot still will be double distilled. The contents of the thumper are only distilled once. The average is 1.5.

Of course, if your thumper volume is considerably smaller than the main boiler, the fraction is more like a 1.2 or something like that.

Otis

[wpkluck]

I'm willing to bet the 1.5 comes from the experience of the outcome, empirical evidence.

Actually, outcome is 'anecdotal' evidence, not empirical.

The output ABV from a thumper won't be as high as going through a pot still twice. Some of the vapour entering the thumper makes it to the outlet without condensing and re-boiling, at least in full. The thumper would have to be charged to a higher ABV than the pot for the energy from the pot to get the thump to actually boil.

'Boil' is a relative term. Since the pot is hotter than the boil point of alcohol, it can still be hotter than the BP of alc in the thumper, allowing the alc to steam off. That is physically how it works.

...but I'm not convinced it constitutes a full distillation cycle.

Not trying to convince you, my friend. I'm trying to come to an objective answer, which (I'm surprised) is tougher than I thought. It seems there is a lot of "I think this" and "It should be this", based on individual preference, and how they think the world (and physics) works.

BTW - that link around thumper analysis was interesting, I'll certainly have to study on it. It doesn't get to the question at hand, but the 'expectation', based on objective reasoning and analysis, is how I came to this question (actually, it was some self-righteous guy saying I couldn't call thumped alc triple-distilled - as if he can tell me what to do in my own house - that got me on to this track).

Thanks!

[wpkluck]

Here is my interpretation of why some folks may call a pot-n-thumper run a 1.5 run. (I don’t call it that. I don’t think most folks care what you call it.)

Assuming you are using a fresh ferment (not low wines).

The contents of the pot still will be double distilled. The contents of the thumper are only distilled once. The average is 1.5.

Of course, if your thumper volume is considerably smaller than the main boiler, the fraction is more like a 1.2 or something like that.

Otis

Otis, let's break this down:

- With thumper - Pot contents is double-distilled, no question (at least by me!)
- Thumper contents - While the contents are only distilled once, IF they are feints, or some previously distilled product, they too are now 'at least' double-distilled. Agreed?
- Low wines in pot, with thumper - 'At least' triple-distilled (if stripped with thumper, XXXX)

I've still not seen any analysis of why some 'insist' that the thumper isn't a proper distillation. And by 'insist', I mean they think they know better, but can't seem to explain it. Still listening! The conversation itself is very valuable!

[NZChris]

I've still not seen any analysis of why some 'insist' that the thumper isn't a proper distillation. And by 'insist', I mean they think they know better, but can't seem to explain it. Still listening! The conversation itself is very valuable!

None of us have to pass an exam before we post here, so don't expect that everything you read is on the money, or that the nomenclature being used is correct.

[Mr Sippy]

I can have a fairly deep memory of minutiae and having read many posts from way back; this is what I recall. Around '07 or so used to be a fella named Sherman (went by pintoshine) who was knowledgeable and experimental. I'd read a few posts of folks referring to including a thumper was a 2x distillation. In one of them Sherman had corrected a 2x'er, saying it was more like 1.5 times. Ever since then I've seen it referred as such. My recollection.

Analytically, with a bit of arithmetic, you may get an answer by looking at the vapor liquid charts and a close look at haggy's thumper thread referenced above. Be mindful the charts are based on a hypothetical 2 component mix and haggy's work is largely empirical. Whatever numbers you discern are going to be 'squishy'. My 2 cents.

[tubbsy]

jonnys_spirit called the use of a thumper a "more like 0.5 distillation in practice", not a 1.5. You are the one who started calling it a 1.5.

[wpkluck]

None of us have to pass an exam before we post here, so don't expect that everything you read is on the money, or that the nomenclature being used is correct.

I know that, which is why I’m specifically asking for it. Too many people get comfortable with their expertise, and have little to back it up (except arrogance!)

[wpkluck]

I can have a fairly deep memory of minutiae and having read many posts from way back; this is what I recall. Around '07 or so used to be a fella named Sherman (went by pintoshine) who was knowledgeable and experimental. I'd read a few posts of folks referring to including a thumper was a 2x distillation. In one of them Sherman had corrected a 2x'er, saying it was more like 1.5 times. Ever since then I've seen it referred as such. My recollection.

Analytically, with a bit of arithmetic, you may get an answer by looking at the vapor liquid charts and a close look at haggy's thumper thread referenced above. Be mindful the charts are based on a hypothetical 2 component mix and haggy's work is largely empirical. Whatever numbers you discern are going to be 'squishy'. My 2 cents.

Sippy, great memory! Funny how things take on a life of their own, and a great illustration of how people believe what they want to believe.

Any analysis of product or vapor is a losing argument. No one does this, so it is ultimately unverifiable. By definition, that makes it a subjective argument. Doesn’t hold water (and doesn’t stream shine!).

Thanks for the great memory!

[wpkluck]

jonnys_spirit called the use of a thumper a "more like 0.5 distillation in practice", not a 1.5. You are the one who started calling it a 1.5.

Not me. I started the thread, but there are lots of threads which refer to 1.5 distillation. I’m trying to get to the bottom of it.

[jonnys_spirit]

The goal of a product condenser is to maintain a temperature less than the vapor entering it such that all vapors are condensed.

A thumper isn’t a product condenser.

liquid in a thumper changes temperature based on the abv of it’s contents (with adequate heat power applied) - thump’s ABV and therefore temp changes throughout a run. This means that some alcohol vapors from the boiler pass through and are not condensed.

In the case of low wines (already distilled once) in the thump and wash in the boiler (not yet distilled) - by the end of the run all the low wines will be distilled a second time and some of the wash will be condensed and re-vaporized while some wash will be passed in vapor form to the PC (less than 2x) without condensing in the thump but all of the wash will be vaporized and condensed at least once and all of the low wines once (second time).

Calling it a 1.5x or a 2x isn’t completely accurate either because there are several variables in play and the physics of the gradients to account for.

Some of the product is distilled once
Some of the product distilled twice
None of it really distilled 1.5 times but the ratios lie between 1x and 2x throughout the run and it’s eventually blended.

Does this make sense?

Cheers,
Jonny

[wpkluck]

A thumper isn’t a product condenser.
...
Some of the product is distilled once
Some of the product distilled twice
None of it really distilled 1.5 times but the ratios lie between 1x and 2x throughout the run and it’s eventually blended.

Does this make sense?

It does, but I don’t know how helpful it is. I never said that I camper was a condenser, but obviously product does condense in it. At least some product does. This supports your assertion.

I would say that your math may not be correct, in that some product evaporates, and is condensed in the pot, same in the thumper, so some product is triple and more distilled by the time he gets to the worm. So I don’t know how realistic it is to say it’s between one and two, it could be any number.

So you’re saying that some of the product doesn’t distill in the thumper, but goes right on to the worm. I suppose this is true if the thumper is dry, but if the steam has to pass through liquid, it has to condense.

[wpkluck]

I guess this is just going to come down to personal preference, on what you want to call double snd triple distilled. It is funny, however, to think that a good number of self-styled experts, who, by the act of moonshine are nonconformists, think so much of themselves that they actually think it’s in the general best interest to tell others what THEY should think and believe.

Too much of that going on nowadays...

[jonnys_spirit]

Not if the temp of the thump liquid is higher than the BP of some of the vapor constituents. The lower BP constituents yes. Higher BP constituents no.

Alcohol vapor from a boiler is a mixture of alcohols consisting of both lower and higher BP’s and the temp of the thumper liquid changes as it’s ABV changes through the run as does the makeup of the vapor from the boiler. It’s a moving target. “Squishy” is a great description and it’s squishy from both sides.

The math gets messy but research ABV and temp gradients of liquid and vapor. There are some graphs around here that illustrate this. You’ve probably seen them already?

If you’re running low wines in the thump and wash in the boiler you’re going to need to prove that this will make a 3x distillation.

Cheers,
Jonny

[ezlle71]

In my opinion, if there isn’t at least low wines in the thump, it isn’t a 1.5 distillation. Guess if there was low wines in both boiler and thump it would be a 2.5 distillation? I’d say moving target is a good way to put it. As long as what comes out the spout is good that’s the goal right?

[wpkluck]

If you’re running low wines in the thump and wash in the boiler you’re going to need to prove that this will make a 3x distillation.

Need to? I don’t think so. My garage, my rules, barring any proof you can provide. I’ve presented my process, and the only analysis anyone has provided uses different facts.

[RC Al]

ASFAIK, a 1.5 is putting a stripping run of low wines back into a simple pot still with another charge of wash.

This is what 99% of members would be familiar with, a thumper is rarely mentioned and as noted you have to go back a decade or so to see an example otherwise

If i can just trow a wild card into your thinking there, theres no mention of effieciency in this .x idea, 5 cycles at 30% efficiency will be very different to 3 cycles at 50% efficiency. Theres too many ways to skin a cat to label this process this way.

I know its winter there and people are a bit stir crazy atm, but this is really just semantics? the terms of reference are going to change if your talking to your non distilling friends vs a fellow hobbyist. The friends are just going to smile and nod and ask to fill their cup again and the hobbyist will want much more detail to know wtf your trying to say in 2 words.

If it was a commercial product you would have to label it one or two or three - how do you half distil something? It is or it isnt? how much of each different distillation makes it into the final cut? too hard of a question to answer to Joe public, so you would have to "round down" or be falsely representing the product.

[NZChris]

If it was a commercial product you would have to label it one or two or three - how do you half distil something?

In my shed, I try to use the definitions used by commercials. E.g., my triple distilled is triple distilled in a pot still, not run through a couple of plates as at least one Youtube nutter claims can be done.

My 1.5s are done in a simple pot, with at least one strip worth of low wines to provide highish abv, plus wash to provide acids, the idea being to put ester precursors, acids and alcohols together in the same, hot, vessel to encourage the development of esters before the vapor reaches the condenser.

[wpkluck]

...the same, hot, vessel to encourage the development of esters before the vapor reaches the condenser.

I don’t care how encouraging you are, it takes a lot to get Ester to strip!

[NZChris]

You have to get Ester in the right mood to get her to come over

[6 Row Joe]

Ester was never good at math! Mathematically It's not 1.5. 1.5 is just a figure of speech. (or whatever you want to call it) I was watching a Buffalo Trace video and I swear I heard them say "it leaves the still and so goes to the box where It's double distilled" There was no mention of another still and they didn't show anything. Thumpers are also called doubler's which is also far from the truth. Interesting conversation!

[Irishgnome]

Wpkluck
If you want to get a real answer, why are you asking on a hobbyist forum? Seems silly to me.
This type of question should be sent to the pros. Several distilleries are very willing to respond to questions of this nature.
You can go back and forth with all the members here, but I doubt you will get an answer that you feel is accurate. At the end of the day, I don’t think the majority of members here give two shits what it should be called.
Good luck on your quest!
Cheers
Irish

[ezlle71]

'Boil' is a relative term. Since the pot is hotter than the boil point of alcohol, it can still be hotter than the BP of alc in the thumper, allowing the alc to steam off. That is physically how it works.

You best do alittle more research. search Magic boiling myth. Alcohol doesn't just "steam" off. the mixture has to boil. Been proven numerous times.

[wpkluck]

Ester was never good at math! Mathematically It's not 1.5. 1.5 is just a figure of speech. (or whatever you want to call it) I was watching a Buffalo Trace video and I swear I heard them say "it leaves the still and so goes to the box where It's double distilled" There was no mention of another still and they didn't show anything. Thumpers are also called doubler's which is also far from the truth. Interesting conversation!

Thanks, Joe. Interesting, but perhaps unproductive. Thumpers are called doublers, but The Whiskey Advocate differentiates between doublers and thumpers (https://www.whiskyadvocate.com/glossary/doubler/). It's hard to know what is know what is authoritative.

Thru all the faux-expertise (there is experience, yes, but expertise? - everyone 'thinks' they're the expert), the problem seems to really be 2-fold:

1 - Some people are questioning another man's process. I say a substance going thru my thumper is double-distilled. Some 'know-it-all' felt they had to chime in, and say, 'I know better, it's not'. Arrogance and hubris at it's finest. Instead of stating they are the definitive authority on the subject, they could have just said, "I don't consider my hooch double distilled unless I run it thru the pot again." Their garage, their process, their evaluation, their determination. I then say, "Thanks for the comment", and we move on...

2. The bullshit about 1.5 distillations. One should NEVER quote a number, any number, unless they can defend it. When I said 2X, I defended it with a pot distill, and a run thru the thumper. You don't have to believe it, but you (not YOU, Joe!) don't have to f-ing comment on everything either! Doing so contributes to 'expert-syndrome', thinking everything that runs off your tongue is manna, like my fine, double-distilled whiskey from my worm!

SOOOOO.... I was curious as to the authority of the 1.5 number (which is why I started this thread). I AUTHORITATIVELY FIND that there has been no data presented to back up this assertion, and declare, without prejudice (meaning if you actually have some data, and some math, and can make a argument), that there is no such thing as a 1.5 distillation (perhaps this is meant as a feeble attempt to say 'partial' distillation - but who are you - again, not YOU Joe - fooling? Only yourself!).

This is a back-alley hobby, a set of hacks to get around the stupid tax laws and high store prices. What I call good hooch is my business, and if you don't like it, you don't have to drink it.

And I'm changing my handle, to DOUBLE-bk, just to annoy the so-called experts.

[wpkluck]

You best do alittle more research. search Magic boiling myth. Alcohol doesn't just "steam" off. the mixture has to boil. Been proven numerous times.

It might surprise you to know that evaporation happens at any temperature. You do the research, I'm happy with the research I've done. You can present facts, or say you've seen them. (Sounds like we have another Sasquatch out there...)