Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Distillation methods and improvements.

Moderator: Site Moderator

Prairiepiss
retired
Posts: 16571
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:42 am
Location: Somewhere in the Ozarks

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Prairiepiss »

MR is proposing a tall packed column that has multiple boka slant plate takeoffs positioned through the length of the column. In a half step ladder fashion. So different fractions can be removed at the different takeoffs.
It'snotsocoldnow.

Advice For newbies by a newbie.
CM Still Mods
My Stuffs
Fu Man

Mr. Piss
That's Princess Piss to the haters.
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

FlyingDutchman has put forth some very insightful points but they stray towards continuous distillation. While they are solid technically, (he is obviously a really smart guy) They don’t address my original post considering fraction selection during a batch distillation process. That will have changing variables during the run.
I have not responded to his post yet only because it will take a little more thought and time than I have had available the last couple of days. I look forward to engaging his big egg on this subject. Hang in there Frosty. You are a quick study.

FD I want your thoughts!
Frosteecat
forum scribe and editing bitch
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:14 pm
Location: Or-eee-gun

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Frosteecat »

Frosteecat wrote:Can you rephrase the hypothesis in a bit more simple terms? Am I understanding that you want to run a slanted plate column with many plates so that each plate will hold a specific segment of the distillate, allowing you to take off the best product where and when you want? And that the challenges inherent in batch distillings are that the batch is mixed so separating flavors is harder to do in general...that good high % ABV distillate has power but bad or off flavor and that good flavors are knocked down the ladder and hard to reclaim...?
So I'm in the ballpark with this? I ask as I've been diving very deeply into fractional principles and just am a little hazy on where the best flavors are traditionally. In hearts? Heads? Tails? And once that is clear, what is the problem/attempt here...better flavors at higher ABV or just more precise take off?
  “Well, between Scotch and nothin', I suppose I'd take Scotch. It's the nearest thing to good moonshine I can find.”
 William Faulkner (1897-1962)
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

Frosty, Distilled alcohol contains a variety of alcohol types and chemicals. We call them fractions. Heads, hearts and tails are the simple terms. Most of the headache fractions are in the heads or first fractions and most of the flavor fractions are at or near the tails. On batch distillation the heads (lighter lower boiling temp) come off first followed by hearts and the heavier higher boiling temp tails. Wash type determines what chemicals are contained that we refer to as flavor congeners. The paper you sent me is fascinating as it describes perceived flavor of different chemicals.

On a tall commercial continuous distillation column fractions will be predictably at the same plate level each time because of boiling temp and specific gravity of each fraction.

The difficulty of the concept I am proposing is that even if we can get great separation with packing, the wash content changes as the run progresses with batch distillation. Collection points will likely change. Or just volumes????

An interesting side bar about this chart. It dispels the myth about the methanol fore shot we discard. Methanol does not occur in grain or sugar ferments. It is present in distilled wines and is attributed to grape skins.

I cant seem to insert it so it is attached. Damn it. it wont let me do that either. I will email it to you.
flyingdutchman
Swill Maker
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Ma, USA

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by flyingdutchman »

Mash,
Sometimes I have luck pasting a file into MS paint, then save it as a jpeg of the size allowed by the forum and then attach it. Otherwise maybe you can convert it to a pdf then attach it? Hope that helps.
measure twice cut once and if that dont work get a bigger hammer!
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

MR there might be 1 way to do what you proposed at the start with multiple slant plates collecting for multiple take off points.

This is to use an old style "regulated" still head. In this context it would utilise an external water jacket (possibly a set of jackets) to FORCE AND MAINTAIN a temperature gradient in the column.

If you could ensure that each plate was held in a specific temperature zone then you might be able to achieve what you proposed. I haven't thought about HOW to do this yet because normally this style is only used to set a specific temperature, although I do believe it has been done with a temperature gradient also.
User avatar
Bushman
Admin
Posts: 18285
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:29 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Bushman »

myles wrote:MR there might be 1 way to do what you proposed at the start with multiple slant plates collecting for multiple take off points.

This is to use an old style "regulated" still head. In this context it would utilise an external water jacket (possibly a set of jackets) to FORCE AND MAINTAIN a temperature gradient in the column.

If you could ensure that each plate was held in a specific temperature zone then you might be able to achieve what you proposed. I haven't thought about HOW to do this yet because normally this style is only used to set a specific temperature, although I do believe it has been done with a temperature gradient also.
Interesting concept and not sure how you could maintain the temp gradients without using some type of computer to monitor it once you figure out the hookup.
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

Ahh heck. I just threw the idea out there to see if I could ruffle a few feathers or get some guys thinking a little different. I thought maybe boka guys would be inspired, thinkers challenged.

I have so many demands on my time I will probably never have the time to try the build. I do think it would be interesting to try. I know there would be take off at each plate but what the heck would you get?

It would be a bitch to drive. BM would have to write a program for a Myles automated external reflux condenser.

Thanks for chimming in guys. :)
NcHooch
retired
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:40 pm
Location: The Ol' North State

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by NcHooch »

I think this is interesting but totally outside the realm of hobby distillation. Havin said that, there's nothing wrong with the idea, and it would work to a certain extent ...but make no mistake, the technology is geared toward continuous distillation.

So are we talkin about parallel processing as a method to save time ? ...the reason I ask is this:

currently, we distill in a serial fashion, right? ...one fraction at a time ....
we heat up the boiler and take the fores in a separate container,
then the heads come and are saved in a separate container,
then the early hearts come and are saved in a separate container,
then the mid hearts come and are saved in a separate container,
then the late hearts come and are saved in a separate container,
then the early tails come and ...well you get the idea

You could theoretically perform the takeoff all in parallel, but it would need to be done in a very controlled fashion , because once you remove one fraction from the batch, another fraction will definitely migrate to the depleted area to re-establish equilibrium . There's certainly some sophisticated systems that control what comes out of where in the big petroleum towers.

...unless you could do what Prairie was suggesting and be able to somehow shut it down with all the fractions trapped in the plates for collection all at once.
NChooch
Practice safe distillin and keep your hobby under your hat.
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

I think this is interesting but totally outside the realm of hobby distillation. Havin said that, there's nothing wrong with the idea, and it would work to a certain extent ...but make no mistake, the technology is geared toward continuous distillation.


I have to agree with you NC. I was inspired to consider this thinking after seeing Jellybeans drawing showing a Boka take off above plates. I love the creative minds here. It would work and eliminate the need for a product condenser.

That led me to the question would it be possible to separate and take off during the run. I was thinking simplicity.

That said, I might whip up a four inch Boka.
NcHooch
retired
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:40 pm
Location: The Ol' North State

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by NcHooch »

I'm not sure how you could accomplish it ...I was thinkin about a 6-stack of vertical thumpers ...but that won't work the way a tall packed column does. ...or would it? :econfused:
NChooch
Practice safe distillin and keep your hobby under your hat.
Frosteecat
forum scribe and editing bitch
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:14 pm
Location: Or-eee-gun

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Frosteecat »

Man if you had an automated program that would let you cool in spots a la a spiral condenser or inline traps with separate modalities you could probably really get close...
  “Well, between Scotch and nothin', I suppose I'd take Scotch. It's the nearest thing to good moonshine I can find.”
 William Faulkner (1897-1962)
Pelson
Novice
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Pelson »

Hi,

I've just been going through the thread, and if I might add maybe just one other thing...

The only (easily) feasable thing to me seems the idea prairi had, to kinda shut down the column.
It does however seems realy hard to do so...

But what if you would use a small boiler, and a large column.
Maybe, in that way, you could fill your column with the entire batch. Well, not entirely, there still would be some stuff left in the boiler maintaining the temperature-equilibrium. But let's say this works, and you have your column, on full reflux, filled with the entire 'interesting' part of the wash.

If you then would've installed take-off valves at every plate, and provide a way to mount jars to them, you could open them all at once, and take out all the different cuts from the different plates at once...

Maybe that's more like the idea you had Mash?

Cool thing though to now and then just try a little thought expirement!
Prairiepiss
retired
Posts: 16571
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:42 am
Location: Somewhere in the Ozarks

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Prairiepiss »

Just had a thought. If you have a still that has multiple takeoffs. And you have it worked out so the fores and heads stay at the top. And hearts can be taken off at a plate below them. What is going to happened to the temp gradient of the column as you remove the hearts. The bottom of the column will rise in temp the more you take off. So will most of the column. I would think this would push the fores and heads even closer to the reflux condenser. Which would now be removing more heat. Or trying to. So now you just list some of the good stuff from it being pushed up above the takeoff.

At first I thought the upper layers or fractions. Wouldn't move if you were to take some off from below them. But after this thought. I think taking anything from anywhere in the column will throw the whole thing out of whack. So it would never be constant.

So what is everyone else's thoughts on what would happen with the temp gradient if product was removed at any of the taps?
It'snotsocoldnow.

Advice For newbies by a newbie.
CM Still Mods
My Stuffs
Fu Man

Mr. Piss
That's Princess Piss to the haters.
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

I am not sure that I agree with this. From Riku's work with packed heads columns and heads reservoirs, it seems that this does not occur.

The entire point of the heads column or heads reservoir is that you don't bother to remove the heads at all. Instead you push them to the top of the column WHERE THEY STAY and remove your product from a lower point. You might change the temperature gradient below your take off point, but I do not see how you can change the temperature gradient above it.

The column above the take off point is saturated with low boiling point volatiles, and provided the temperature at the take off point is higher than their boiling point, they will continue to occupy that space. During equalisation the column is stacked from the top down.
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

:lol: Let me rephrase. You should be able to remove product without upsetting the stability of the column.

If you have a section of packed column above your take off point, lets say you have multiple slant plates and are removing hearts from the 3rd one down from the reflux condenser. Then provided the column containing plates 1 and 2 has enough volume, or you have included a heads trap so that you have restrained some of the heads as liquid, AND provided that section of column can contain all the heads and foreshots, I think you will be OK.

If you stabilise the column so that ALL the heads and foreshots are in the upper section of the column when you start to take product, the temperature gradient in the upper section should stay constant. It is a "dead space" filled with low boiling point volatiles. Any that do get condensed into reflux liquid SHOULD (if correctly set up) re-evapourate before they get to your product take off point. After the column has been stabilised, the heads just circulate around in the upper section but do not get lower than the product take off point.

You will get a variation in temperature gradient in the lower section but it will not be able to transfer past your take off point - so long as there are hearts in the system. As you start to deplete the ethanol then things will change, but whilst there is product being collected the temperature at the take off point should remain stable.

I think there are better options, but it might be do-able.
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

:lol: Am glad you said that PP, I was having a hard time working out if it was aimed at what I had just posted.

Going back to the topic, I don't run a slant plate myself but am I right in thinking that even with a conventional slant plate column with just a single take off point you need to be careful with your product rates. If you take off product too fast does it not do exactly what you described - loose stability?

I imagine you would have the same constraints no matter where you physically put your plates. I am sure with a multi slant plate option the same restrictions would apply. Don't take product too fast or you risk upsetting the reflux ratio with all the bad things that cascade off that situation.
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

Yes Pelson, That is what I am thinking.

I would be interested to see results if once equalized you cracked every valve just a little and took off slowly as to not disturb its action.

Could we run the entire run and have clear separate fractions from each collection vessel?

If we could take off in this manor the run will not run like a normal batch distillation. It would just stop when alcohol was depleted. All fractions would have already been taken.
Yes this is why I used the escalator anology,
RC I did not see your escalator analogy so I am not sure what you are saying there.

In explaining to frosty the difference between a packed column and your still or a typical flute I used a high rise stair case analogy.
With packing alcohol starts up the stairs. Two steps up, one step down. Working its way up the stair case. The weaker guys (higher boiling point alcohols) and overweight out of shape water guys start being left behind. Only the in shape guys (lower boiling point alcohols) make it to the top. The really fast heads guys are first with the hearts guys coming in a close second.

On a flute and your still, every body gets to take the express elevator to the top where they all gang up with a reflux condenser on the water guys.

I have speculated in this thread that because packing can alow a natural separation of fractions that we may be able to take them off effectively in this manor eliminating smearing completely.
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

MR I had not actually thought that far ahead.
Did you effectively say that you were thinking of fitting multiple traps (after all that is what a slant plate really is) and accumulating the ENTIRE alcohol content of the boiler into the column. Before taking any product?

Given sufficient capacity it would be possible to fractionate the contents into numerous small traps. I have not run through the numbers yet to see if it would be practical, or what volumes would be required. To be honest with you I had never considered the possibility.

I will have to look back at the posts, but I am sure someone else mentioned the idea of fractionating and then shutting down before collecting any product. It just didn't register at the time.
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

myles wrote:MR I had not actually thought that far ahead.
Did you effectively say that you were thinking of fitting multiple traps (after all that is what a slant plate really is) and accumulating the ENTIRE alcohol content of the boiler into the column. Before taking any product?

Given sufficient capacity it would be possible to fractionate the contents into numerous small traps. I have not run through the numbers yet to see if it would be practical, or what volumes would be required. To be honest with you I had never considered the possibility.

I will have to look back at the posts, but I am sure someone else mentioned the idea of fractionating and then shutting down before collecting any product. It just didn't register at the time.
Several people have mentioned running the whole run then shutting down.

That is not my direction. I am suggesting that maybe we can take off like a continuous column with a batch, and there may not be as much change during the run because fractions are taken as they develop.
Frosteecat
forum scribe and editing bitch
Posts: 775
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:14 pm
Location: Or-eee-gun

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Frosteecat »

With proper cooling and reflux controls at specific spots given an appropriately worked out volume to vapor/condensate configuration with segmented areas of a distillation device I don't see why you couldn't fine tune it to produce/trap/evacuate specific fractions in specific places. Whether you could remove them piecemeal withought upsetting dynamics elsewhere is harder to figure...but maybe your design would allow for those resulting changes and could work with them or even use them to your advantage....
  “Well, between Scotch and nothin', I suppose I'd take Scotch. It's the nearest thing to good moonshine I can find.”
 William Faulkner (1897-1962)
MudDuck
Novice
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:59 pm

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by MudDuck »

Not sure exactly what you're trying to do, seems you want to be able to remove fractions separately without making them wait their turn at the top of the column?

If my guess as to your intention is right I would forget plates and look into a VM design, something like a tall packed column with a reflux condenser at the top and vapor taps with thermometers along the whole length alongside the packing. Vapors can be selected and drawn off from wherever they decide to settle in, simply watch the thermometers to find the fraction you want and open the corresponding valve to grab it. It just seems to me as though keeping everything in a vapor state until after it has been removed from the system will reduce any negative effects the takeoff will have on the columns equalization.

PS: I'm not a column guy so take my opinion here with a generous grain of salt.
flyingdutchman
Swill Maker
Posts: 325
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Ma, USA

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by flyingdutchman »

Hi Frost,
Excellent point
With proper cooling and reflux controls at specific spots given an appropriately worked out volume to vapor/condensate configuration with segmented areas of a distillation device I don't see why you couldn't fine tune it to produce/trap/evacuate specific fractions in specific places.
But remember that just 1 mol of any substance occupies 22 LITERS of space as a gas @ OC (STP) and at 80C (1 ATM) I think it goes up to ~ 30 LITERS. Since water has a molecular weight of ~18 and a density of ~1 g/cm^3, that means that 18 mL of water occupies 30 L of space in your column at 80C. Ethanol is a little better with a molecular weight of ~46 and a density 0f ~ 0.8 g/cm^3 but still ~ 58 mL of pure ethanol will occupy ~30L of space in your column as a gas. So say you are very efficient and only get 300 mL of heads in a run (never mind foreshots) that is roughly 155 Liters of gas. Now what happens if you get 600 mL of heads? How many mL of hearts do you get? Then think about how big this thing will need to be to trap that volume of distillate in gas form. :?:
measure twice cut once and if that dont work get a bigger hammer!
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

mash rookie wrote: Several people have mentioned running the whole run then shutting down.

That is not my direction. I am suggesting that maybe we can take off like a continuous column with a batch, and there may not be as much change during the run because fractions are taken as they develop.
Fair enough so lets look at this from a slightly different perspective. Most continuouus columns are run as a batch process. Now before everyone starts shouting at me, they tend to have start and end times, and run continuously between them. OK some of the runs are very long in duration so you could think of it as a really LONG batch process.

My point is though that it might be worth comparing column volume to the TOTAL boiler charge that is processed during that run. My gut reaction is that it is entirely possible to scale this down but you might need to run a much smaller capacity column in relation to your boiler charge than is conventional. I suspect that trying to run in a "continuous" manner in the way you are describing might be difficult to control if the relative proportions are not matched correctly.

Off course I could have this the wrong way round - perhaps you need to compare column volume to the volume of wash being processed at a given moment in time. Some of the columns feed wash in from the top and steam in from the bottom. I don't know and am the 1st to admit that I know sodd all about continuous columns other than real basic stuff, but I suspect the size of the column and THROUGHPUT of wash is very important.

This is interesting but is there a significant advantage over the usual 'stack them and take them out 1 at a time' method? From what I have heard previously, the folks that are using scaled down continuous columns are processing fairly slowy at low energy input levels. Completely different scenario to the conventional reflux column system.
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

Myles, Your post is thought inspiring as usual. I had not quite looked at it that way. Your points are well taken. Along those lines I would think that it will come down to vapor speed in relation to column size. (I think you said that) with your suggestion of scaling down. Taking your statements in to consideration boiler volume or charge only determines the length of run time. Crap, I think I better go back and look at FD's earlier post that I thought went to continuous distillation. edited.....Damn, I hate it when you guys are way ahead.
flyingdutchman wrote:Hi Frost,
Excellent point
With proper cooling and reflux controls at specific spots given an appropriately worked out volume to vapor/condensate configuration with segmented areas of a distillation device I don't see why you couldn't fine tune it to produce/trap/evacuate specific fractions in specific places.
But remember that just 1 mol of any substance occupies 22 LITERS of space as a gas @ OC (STP) and at 80C (1 ATM) I think it goes up to ~ 30 LITERS. Since water has a molecular weight of ~18 and a density of ~1 g/cm^3, that means that 18 mL of water occupies 30 L of space in your column at 80C. Ethanol is a little better with a molecular weight of ~46 and a density 0f ~ 0.8 g/cm^3 but still ~ 58 mL of pure ethanol will occupy ~30L of space in your column as a gas. So say you are very efficient and only get 300 mL of heads in a run (never mind foreshots) that is roughly 155 Liters of gas. Now what happens if you get 600 mL of heads? How many mL of hearts do you get? Then think about how big this thing will need to be to trap that volume of distillate in gas form. :?:
You are way too freaking smart FD. Hmm, I am not traping vapor so I can ignore this right?

FD, can you give me a formula for determining BTU's in relation to producing vapor volume for a given wash %. I will need to be able to multiply this out for larger columns to determine BTU's necessary to provide sufficient vapor speed. Did I ask that right? It sounds dumber each time I read it. Ahh heck, you know what I mean.

You guys are really lucky I use spell check. You would never know what the hell I am saying.
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

This isn't too bad actually. Given that all volatiles perform aproximately the same, you can average out the figures and get the result that:

Your energy input will liberate vapour from the wash at 45/litres/kw/min

From there you just need the BTU conversion:

Convert BTU to kW by multiplying by 0.000293
Convert kW to BTU by multiplying by 3414.

You don't need to worry about the composition of the wash, the differences are so small it is not really significant.

Oh and about your other comment :wink: The column is full of vapour right, and it can only hold a proportion of the vapour available at any moment in time. This is why we tend to try and segregate the vapours and stack them. There are some folks running continuous columns so it can be done. GOOD LUCK. :)
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

Thanks Myles. For some reason I thought it would be more complicated than that and wash ABV would come in to play. Thinking about it, it makes sense. Even though my boiler temp changes with reduction of ABV, vapor speed is only reflective of power applied. Your formula is even easier as I was going to convert BTU’s to KW for electrical sizing on boilers. I am going to test a six incher soon but will use propane. I don’t think my 5500 watt electric boiler will drive it. I will play with your numbers. Being able to run a comparable design four inch on my electric will give me something to compare desired vapor speed with known power use. The math should be simple from there to calculate for size change. :thumbup: :thumbup:
MR
User avatar
Bushman
Admin
Posts: 18285
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:29 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by Bushman »

mash rookie wrote:Thanks Myles. For some reason I thought it would be more complicated than that and wash ABV would come in to play. Thinking about it, it makes sense. Even though my boiler temp changes with reduction of ABV, vapor speed is only reflective of power applied. Your formula is even easier as I was going to convert BTU’s to KW for electrical sizing on boilers. I am going to test a six incher soon but will use propane. I don’t think my 5500 watt electric boiler will drive it. I will play with your numbers. Being able to run a comparable design four inch on my electric will give me something to compare desired vapor speed with known power use. The math should be simple from there to calculate for size change. :thumbup: :thumbup:
MR
We can probably test it on my boiler when I bring it down with the 4" column. My electrical plug might be different than yours but since they are set up basically the same shouldn't be hard to change out!
myles
retired
Posts: 2451
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:34 am
Location: UK, in the heather

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by myles »

mash rookie wrote:I am going to test a six incher soon but will use propane. I don’t think my 5500 watt electric boiler will drive it.
MR
Thats a good point actually. There seems to be a trend towards bigger and bigger columns and it's not always a good plan.

Conventional wisdom states that for a packed column you really want to maintain a vapour speed of 12" to 20" per second. The usual figures you see are:

1.5kW for a 2" column
2-5 to 3kW for a 3" column and
4.5 to 5kW for a 4" column

the calculation that I have gives a figure of 9.8kW for a 6" column with a vapour speed of 16" per second. Is that anything like what you are expecting?
mash rookie
Angel's Share
Angel's Share
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:20 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Meeting time Boka and brain guys.

Post by mash rookie »

Great idea Bushman.
I have not converted my electric rig to tri clamp so running a four inch rig on your boiler would be great. I can have my six inch ready to go easily.


Myles,
I am actually looking at the upper end of vapor speed numbers for running whiskies. By building tall large bore packed columns we will need the ability to really throw power at them. Even without running a dephlag after stacking the column we may get more reflux than desired.
Post Reply