the distillation process

[LWTCS]

LWTC I am not so sure you have entrainment issues.

In truth I don't either,,,And I really don't feel like I have a smearing issue either....With optimal cooling for heads collection,,,,the rig nearly shuts down when heads are finished. Been told that was bullshit too.

[flyingdutchman]

Thanks LWTC,
I will definitly reread it with positive feedback in mind!

a "thumper" is pretty stone age technology

yep thumpers are old school BUT in thier own way its amazing what those guys achieved with nothing more than an extra barrel and some pipe. I mean they essentially doubled their # of plates under the crudest of conditions.

[flyingdutchman]

Well,
I for one have no doubt that its not smearing. We can do all kinds of chemical analysis (like GCMS) but in the end its all about perception and taste (isnt that what the big boys do??). If you taste it and, it tastes right then isnt that what it is really about? As far as shutting down or stopping with the dephleg adjustments I believe that. Just with a pot still I take careful notes on heat settings, 300 mL rate collection rates, taste of each jar, thermometer readings and parrot readings and (dont laugh too hard) I keep that in a lab notebook. With 1 piece of steel wool (SS) and no forced reflux, i get about 1 extra "plate" and I see a definite slow down first at the end of the heads and then around start of the tails. based on that I have complete faith that what you say is true. AND we have a second person who confirms it.

[flyingdutchman]

By the way for anyone following along thats pretty much the basic theory behind distillaion as far as I can say. One thing to muddy the water here is recently i read a paper where it is shown that really the liquids are basically raised to the boiling points but actually are evaporatiing not boiling! If you read all the literature carefully they talk all about boiling points but then rather carefully use the word vaporize. In the end the net result is the same and it still take the LHV to cause the change but it is an interesting thought. Its in Mike Nixons paper Some Questions About Distillation. Right now Myles has a thread going on here all about this. If you read all this up to now and get it, I suggest you go there cause your up to speed to get engaged in that one. If you have ANY QUESTIONS, post here or pm me. I will never say who asked what questions and the only foolish question is the one you dont ask.

PS
If you pick up a copy of the Compeat Distiller I doubt you will regret it. Its one of my favorites

[LWTCS]

I believe the issue was that some of the lower boiling point constituents are so near in temps to etho,,,, that one couldn't possibly get their still to shut down,,,,or detect heads ,,,,,or some such thing....This position is a miniscule consideration for our purposes and has nothing to do with what has in fact been happening at the end of heads,,,,or there about.....ya still got manually evaluate any way IMO.

[flyingdutchman]

Its a physical observation. If you run it and see it it's occuring. If its consistantly repeatable then its beyond reproach.

[LWTCS]

Been trying to reconcile my thoughts with what I believe is happening and my incorrect use of the "stratification" word..
So water and etho are infinitely miscable. True. So I certainly see how it seems that the application of heat can make things even more miscible.......
But it is the polarity of the material that is key...Water being polar and Etho being not so polar...

[flyingdutchman]

Well yes that is true. I might phrase as they are infintely miscible because they are so much alike. Like dissolves like (both polar). Opposites attract (H bonding with partial + and - charges). Water is more polar but ethanol is also quite polar just a little less so. Just look at the image of them H bonding. Now maybe from an energy stand point it might be easier to break the H bond betyween EtOH and H2O I dont know the answer to that. Im not saying its impossible I just personally see it as less likely. Think of this way they have been doing distillations a LOONG time in fact the chemical engineers I work with all but consider it a done deal. Has anyone ever published anything about this type of effect in any kind of journal or can anyone find any kind of data that supports it? I gotta say just to see if I was off base i ran this by 3 other chemists I work with and respect thier opinons alot and in the end none of them thought it was remotely likely.
Sorry dude

[LWTCS]

Now maybe from an energy stand point it might be easier to break the H bond betyween EtOH and H2O I dont know the answer to that. Im not saying its impossible I just personally see it as less likely.

Huh? The higher the the ABV,, the the less energy is needed. Can we not agree that is a true statement? That surely can not be in question? I certainly must not understand?

Has anyone ever published anything about this type of effect in any kind of journal or can anyone find any kind of data that supports it?

Effect??? Can we agree that an etho mixture will evaporate on its own accord with no humane influence? And can we agree that the constituents with the lowest boiling point within a boiler charge will vaporize first and seek to occupy the highest space available?

I gotta say just to see if I was off base i ran this by 3 other chemists I work with and respect thier opinons alot and in the end none of them thought it was remotely likely.
Sorry dude

That what is likely? that Etho can not be separated from water?,,,and that coincidentally,, water is more polar than Etho??

I am not communicating very well at all...sorry. I'll just have to figger a better way to explain....

[Prairiepiss]

With my limited runs on my inline thumper that's based on Larry's work, I can say the product stops after heads, I must reduce dephlegamator induced reflux to take hearts. Then hearts run solid until once again the product stops. Then I turn the dephleg to almost no reflux and take tails rather quickly. I taste no smearing, good clean hearts. 3 " plates / thumpers" hearts stay at 93abv solid, flat line.

That's one of the good things about a cm still. A cm still whether its a packed column or a plated column will do this. The heads part is not as noticeable in a packed column. The ABV of the vapor and temp relation is the key. Heads usually come off pretty high around 95%. This is what makes it harder to get it to stop after heads depletion on a packed column. Because you are pulling off a 95% for the hearts run. Anyway you get the delphlegmater/reflect condenser set to only allow vapors below a certain temp to pass. Once the ABV drops the vapor temp rises so it gets knocked back down. You then adjust it again and it will take off till the ABV drops again raising the vapor temps up yet again. You get the idea.

I have observed this with both the packed column and my bubblecap plate. I've also watched mine during the last two runs. When it hits the tails and I don't adjust it. It will shut down for a min or so. Then surge a little distillate and stop again. I beleave what is happening is. Most of the alcohol is depleted from the boiler so ABV is low. But if you let it go. The alcohol will as we so often say stack itself into the column. So when the ABV reaches the set temp point allowed by the delphlegmater/reflux condenser. It flows through until it drops in ABV and temp rises again.

Both my last runs when I hit that point. I was running rum at approx 85%. But when it shut down at the tails I had approx 300 ml in my jar. I let it go and collected another 100ml at the same ABV. It just took some time to let it keep stacking and depleting. Bit the ABV coming out never dropped. It stay the same. Them when I did shut the delphlegmater/reflux condenser off. I barely got any tails even thought I kept running it down to 10%ish.

Now I haven't tasted it as of yet. And I'm sure it won't be up to my liking. But I am very strict with my hearts cut. No mater what it how I run it.

[flyingdutchman]

Hi,
I think there is some misunderstanding here which is why I started this post so this might be a good point to restate some of my previous points
1) In general, Water, Ethanol, or any water ethanol mixture in any ratio (ABV) will vaporize. The energy required to do this is called the Latent Heat of Vaporization. This is defined as ~ 39 KJ/Mol for either water or ethanol.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization (look at the chart at the bottom of the page if this is in doubt or consult the handbook of chemistry and physics). Please do not confuse the temperature that a mixture of substances will boil with the energy it require to cause vaporization (LHV) there is a difference
2) Of course I can agree that ethanol will evaporate but then so will water. Liquids dont need to be boiling to vaporize in fact many can go from the solid phase directly to the vapor phase (sublimation) but this doesnt change the fact that it does require energy to cause this transition or alter Raoults law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization( refer to the graph at the top of the page).
3) Sorry but I must disagree that the constituents with the lowest boiling points in a mixture vaporize first thats what this whole post is about. They will all vaporize in ratios based on the difference of their vapor pressure which is of course related to boiling point. But the key part is that they do it in ratios, I am not trying to be picky with words here there is a difference between first and in a ratio.
4) Yes I am afraid that the other chemists I have spoken to are also doubtful that water will separate from ethanol in the liquid phase just by heating (but then we are organic chemists not say physical chemists and there is a difference).
5) Yes the polarity of water and ethanol are different but they are both polar, protic, solvents so that they H bond quite well together.
LWTC I am not saying you are wrong here or criticize you I am just trying to say I personally am doubtful and outline my reasons why I am doubtful. I personally encourage you do do some form of precise repeatable experiment with good temperature control (with say n=10 measurements), I would welcome your results regardless of whether I was right or wrong.

[flyingdutchman]

Maybe this will help with regards to polarity and Hydrogen bonding of Ethanol and Water........http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/ ... cules.html

Ethanol - Water with hydrogen bonding:

Various molecules may mix and dissolve in each other if they have approximately the same type of polarity. In the case of water and ethanol, this is the situation. The hydrogen of the -OH group on alcohol is polar as it is in the water molecule.

Therefore, the hydrogen of the -OH group on the ethanol may hydrogen bond to an oxygen of a water molecule (shown) or to an oxygen of an alcohol (not shown).

Again, some combinations which are not hydrogen bonds include: hydrogen to another hydrogen or hydrogen to a carbon. So notice that none of these are shown.

162ethanolwater.gif (7.67 KiB) Viewed 2364 times

[flyingdutchman]

One last thing that I see often. People often say that lighter things rise up and i believe I understand what they are trying to say. However as stated that is incorrect. Lighter things do not rise up. When we use the word light most people take that to mean weight (or mass). Wether something floats sinks or is neutrally buoyant is a function of density.
Correctly stated denser materials sink, or if you prefer the less dense of two materials can rise up.
Again I am not being picky with words ther is a BIG difference
Density= Mass/Volume
Just saying something floats up because it weighs less completely disregards the volume it occupies. So whats the difference you might say.....
Well take water 1 molecule of water which weighs exactly the same as the next (ignoring isotopes). But if I freeze water and put it into a container filled with liquid water it floats. if I push it to the bottom it rises up. Did I somehow change what water weighs? NO when water freezes it expands. When it expands it occupies a greater volume (ask anyone who ever had a pipe freeze in the winter). When it occupies a greater volume its density decreased. Same mass Greater Volume.
But hold on that only works because they cant mix.
If I swallow a cup of salt water does it sink to my foot because the rest of the water in me is less dense? No because it can mix (remember miscible and soluble) and diffuses through out my body (remember the entropy, mixing/ diffusion).\

Now once we get into gases they behave differently as outlined herehttp://crescentok.com/staff/jaskew/ISR/ ... lass17.htm
Here are some key concepts
1) A gas expands spontaneously to fill its container. The volume of a gas equals the volume of the container in which it is held. (again its not rising up it is expanding here)
2) A gas is highly compressible. When pressure is applied to a gas, its volume readily decreases.
3) Gases form homogeneous mixtures with each other regardless of the identities or relative proportions of the component gases.
4) Compared to solids and liquids, the molecules of gases are relatively far apart. In air, the molecules take up only about 0.1% of the total volume - compared to the individual molecules of a liquid that occupy about 70% of the total space.

Dont take my word for it do the research,look at the website, look up the gas laws, check with a chemist or physicist.

[Bushman]

I'll take your word for it and thanks for the science lesson! If only I can retain 1/2 the information you have provided to this forum.

[Odin]

Wow, this is a great thread. Loved reading it. Couldn't stop. Started like 3 hours ago and now I am at the end. I am going to give it some thought. Some? A lot. If I wake up and have any Q's or remarks ... I will let you guys know. For now ... Thank you a lot. Great contribution.



Odin.

[flyingdutchman]

Hey Odin,
Happy 4th! Great to hear you liked it. Please any question comments or what ever feel free to ask. if I know the answer i will tell you if I dont i will say that too.

[Odin]

Dutch,

Thank you! And a happy 4th to you as well. We don't celebrate it over here. But this movie on aliens taking over (Independence Day) is being broadcasted later ...

You make me feel welcome! I am still crunching. What has been said, is not so much "new", but the way it is arranged ... is very, very helpfull. It is presented like building blocks (Lego?) and helps me "click" things together. And that helps me to a better understanding.

I want to start sharing what happens in my head. Just a bit affraid that I will not have the language skills and/or diplomatic skills to explain (if that is the word) in such a way that some might think me a moron.

But what the heck! I have been around on HD for a few years now, so most of you guys already know me like that. Ahum.

Okay Dutch, so I do not just propose things or ask questions. I want you to judge if what I talk about belongs into this thread or not. If you feel it is more adequate to start a new thread on some of the issues I want to share, please tell me.

Topics/Questions that come up in my mind:
- (Semi) fluidiced beds and the consequence they have on performance;
- Flute design and why it caries over so much taste;
- Positive feedback systems;
- My own archaic thru tubed CM 1.75 inches wide, 3 feed tall fractionating still: why does it hit 96.5% abv every time, and at a high speed?

The last point is very personal, but I feel that some of the earlier Q's & A's will give more insight.

Semi-fluidiced beds and the consequence on performance:

Tests with a larger, more robust packing like SPP show that 95%+ can be achieved at a higher take off rate as compared to scrubbers. This seems to defy the sorta "laws" we apply on - say - a normal LM. Higher vapour speed, less void, less surface for redistillation all contradict that with this larger SPP you can do what it does: or reach 95%+ in a lower column or increase take off speed.

I think the solution lays in the fact SPP (in combo with more energy being put into the system) creates a sorta (semi) fluidized bed. A partially flooded system, where gasses bubble up, thus enhancing exchange and increasing abv. More power in means more refluxing and even more abv.

etc.

Flute design & taste:

In a normal still, taste starts to get less if you distill above 80%. What does this mean? Every sorta alcohol has a taste of its own, methanol and ethanol allmost none. But furfurrol, butanol, etc. do. Since they stay the same, they will allways have their own taste. I think taste molecules (from grains, berries, fruit) come over. Mostly in a way that lighter (floral) notes come over first with smaller alcohol molecules. Heavier notes come over with bigger (tailsy) alcohols. I call these tastes secundairy taste notes. An ethanol molecule does not taste like corn, neither does a methanol molecule, so why does a corn mash give a likker that tastes like ... corn? What I call secundairy taste notes travelling over.

In a flute abv is above 80%. Secundairy taste notes are fluxed out of the alcohol content. So when you do an equilibrium and get rid of heads, where do the secundairy lighter taste notes associated with heads stay (secundairy!)? I think the stay for a large amount in the tower/boiler and are so presented in a higher ratio than normal to the next phase: middle run. CM flute is famous for tails control. Allmost all the tailsy alcohols are surpressed. But maybe the secundairy taste notes are fluxed out of them, due to the high abv? Thus again presenting the middle run with a bigger than normal amount of taisty oils associated with the good parts of tails?

What do you guys think?

Positive feedback:

I read Harry's paper a while back. Thruly inspriational. I think I know why he (they?) consider Larry's thumper apprach not a positive feedback system. It does give off a higher abv at every thumper (just like a flute), but doesn't the drain back to the boiler finally make for a system that has also negative feedback? I think. Because in the beginning and middle of the run, abv rises, but if you would continue, wouldn'you reach a point where it stops? Please correct me if I misinterpret! Positive feedback means the system runs into the red automatically and cannot produce less than 95%+. Untill all the abv is finished. And then it just stops ...

My own still:

Is not supposed to run as good as she does. But it is a narrow column. And has a very big & heavy packing very temperature sensitive (basalt stones) leaving very little space for gasses, thus creating high vapour speed. "Collapsing" against the cold spot created by the thru tube (and the cold transfer to the stones. "No gass can pass". Yes, so why does it? Is it because my tower & packing also create a semi fluidiced bed? Liquid surrounding and pooling close to the thru tube, gass/likker exchange ...

Not sure on any of this, but these are things that are on my mind.

So now the Q is: do these topics belong here? Can you correct, judge, add ...

Odin.

[flyingdutchman]

Hi Odin,
Good movie, sorry about the 4th thing, classic American mistake! Glad you liked the post none of it was meant to be ground breaking just trying to layout what you already know in a stepwise manner and maybe correct a few misunderstandings. The good thing is that any question about distillation/separation is relevant here. The bad part is I don’t even have close to all the answers and would be a liar if I said I did.
One important point is efficiency. If someone says they are getting better separations than expected I truly believe them. I absolutely believe that in this case the packing/column/system design is simply more efficient than whatever was previously used. You guys know your systems so when you see an improvement I believe it to be true. Now quantifying exactly how much better is another matter and to say exactly how much better, then some form of measurement that eliminates possible sources of error and account for those that can’t be eliminated need to be utilized.
So here’s my best guess or at least honest answer to some of your questions...
1) SPP packing- I suspect (but don’t know for a fact) it does exactly what Nixon suggest for any packing material in the complete distiller -It just gives a better surface to volume ratio. here is a link I found where they discuss it a little http://www.stillsmart.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=966Now I would ask EXACTLY how much better is it 1%, 10% 20%? Has anyone done a thorough job of carefully and exactly measuring this and gotten consistent reliable results. I don’t doubt that it is working better but does the additional cost justify the return? IDK but those are valid questions.
As far as takeoff speed have they exceeded what is theoretically possible for that size column or have they just come up with a more efficient system thus allowing a faster separation??
2) I am totally ignorant about semi fluidized beds. A quick literature search reveals some information about fluidized beds but to me quick scans it almost seems like they are talking about solid particles that are almost liquefied like what happen to solid ground in an earthquake??? Perhaps this leads to every uniform packing and increased surface area??? IDK (sorry)
3) Flute design and taste. So at least partly I am at a loss on this one. I don’t have one and never ran one so I am in no position to make a qualified statement about them. Not to upset the applecart but I inherently believe a separation is a separation. Look at the overall distillation process from a theory standpoint. I don’t think we rewrite raoults law etc and somehow with a flute separate ethanol from water but not other things along the way. I suspect it is possible and probably already been done that they build plate stills that produce clean vodkas because if they do then it’s not something vague about the plates that are causing this. Perhaps it relates more to the overall design of the stills rather than the actual plates that allow this taste vs. ABV. Think Kiwi touched on a lot of this and if I am remembering right I have to agree with him. Look at all the problems with the off tastes in a 2 Inch still. I don’t blame the overall plate designs so I suspect something else is going on. (Feel free to rake me over the coals on that one lol)
4) Positive feedback.. Seems like he is kind of saying if you return the reflux to the base (but not boiler) the it will continuially condense and vaporize its way repeatedly up the column in a sort of cointious loop. I am not sure that is instantaneous it’s still going to take time and of course the system is limited at azeotope. however just because you have positive feedback doesn’t mean you have to get 95% and nothing less,... it all depends on how you run it (I think?). ANY system even without active reflux (if run correctly) I believe should continually have a greater ABV as you move up the column. I think Nixon’s idea was to return the reflux purposefully to the base of the column. Soooo, as long as LWTC's system does this I see that as positive feedback.
5 Archaic is interpretive. If it aint broke don’t fix it. If your system is getting azeotope in good yield then I suspect your system is quite efficient. Right off the bat I am thinking you have a very high thermal mass. I am guessing I might take you a little longer to come up to temp because of the mass of the stone but then it probably holds that temp quite well.

well that’s just a lot of my rambling opinions and I could be WAY OFF on a lot of this

[LWTCS]

Perhaps it relates more to the overall design of the stills rather than the actual plates that allow this taste vs. ABV. Think Kiwi touched on a lot of this and if I am remembering right I have to agree with him. Look at all the problems with the off tastes in a 2 Inch still. I don’t blame the overall plate designs so I suspect something else is going on. (Feel free to rake me over the coals on that one lol)

Usge sent me a pdf that talks about how an actual plate can hold a flavor note (both good and bad) and how the flavor can be concentrated at the top of the apparatus,,,,,Further we also know that tails can be pushed into 90% product and also that we can achieve 90% with a mere two plates and dephlegmater...
Flutes are less efficient in that they have less plates and as such allow more adjuncts to to be carried to the PC...They allow for a poorer quality of separation and this is the quality that most flute operators prefer to exploit.

Certainly can use less packing too.....

I am not sure that is instantaneous it’s still going to take time and of course the system is limited at azeotope.

Being limited at azeotrope is what makes the concept so good...as he uses the microphone/speaker analogy to demonstrate failure,,,,likker has a built in stopping point.....
My observation is that there seems to be a threshold or time frame for cycling to get my system to perform in somewhat of a "steady state" at 95.....It does take some input/refluxing to get it there,,,on my rig anyway. But it seems once the threshold is crossed,,,,the system stays very stable with rapid collection speeds.
It is this threshold that fascinates the heck out of me. And as an aside and barely related,,,,,,, Rock noted that he felt his boiler was depleted after perhaps 20 minutes or so.......

[flyingdutchman]

Flutes are less efficient in that they have less plates and as such allow more adjuncts to to be carried to the PC...They allow for a poorer quality of separation and this is the quality that most flute operators prefer to exploit.

Yep I have to agree with that one BUT I wonder if its not just that but also a combination of the overall design. I mean if they can get a clean vodka from a plate still (I think I read that somewhere but dont remember where) then plates are able to give clean crisp separations. Still I can see how once a flavor reaches a plate it could stay there.

we can achieve 90% with a mere two plates and dephlegmater...

This is the decieving thing about counting plates in a active reflux system! Sure it only has 2 plates (plus a boiler) BUT..
if the vapor reaches the top is condensed is sent back to the first plate then travels all the way up again now how many plates did it see? What if it happens 2 times? This is the part where we need to be careful when counting plates and thinking that systems are achieving higher ABV than theoretically possible.

LOL- LWTC I dont mean to imply you are saying this its just the perfect que to point this part out

[LWTCS]

What if it happens 2 times?

It is happening two times,,,and then some.. That is what we are trying to do....get the material to cycle and take advantage of the positive feedback circuit. Do I not understand what you are saying Dutch?

[flyingdutchman]

What if it happens 2 times?

It is happening two times,,,and then some.. That is what we are trying to do....get the material to cycle and take advantage of the positive feedback circuit. Do I not understand what you are saying Dutch?

Well yes and no. Its ok to laugh here, I know I never give an easy answer . I believe it is happening to you multiple times that has to be a good part of why you get such good results with your system.

What I meant to say is people are not getting greater than 100% efficiency per plate. Lets say they have a system wth active reflux and it only has 1 plate. Now somehow they do the calculations and say wow I am getting 160% efficiency(just made up number) from that plate. But its not really 160% because if they run through the same plate 2 times (just an example) its not 160% efficient its 2 xs 80%. Of course this is an oversimplification that ignores things like the boiler, passive reflux, and the fact that we are not returning every drop of distillate to the 1st plate etc. etc....

[LWTCS]

What I meant to say is people are not getting greater than 100% efficiency per plate. Lets say they have a system wth active reflux and it only has 1 plate. Now somehow they do the calculations and say wow I am getting 160% efficiency(just made up number) from that plate. But its not really 160% because if they run through the same plate 2 times (just an example) its not 160% efficient its 2 xs 80%. Of course this is an oversimplification that ignores things like the boiler, passive reflux, and the fact that we are not returning every drop of distillate to the 1st plate etc. etc....

Ah yes I understand...This is in fact why there was a bunch of skepticism early on as the system,,,or more specifically, the equipment is not so awfully efficient as such,,,but rather depends on the cycling to enhance the efficiency of the equipment as the 100% reflux cycle progresses.

[flyingdutchman]

Bingo.
I wouldnt be quick to say your system is inefficient it might be quite efficient.
Plus you probably have a boatload of thermal mass so it probably holds temps rock solid (is my guess)

[LWTCS]

I wouldnt be quick to say your system is inefficient it might be quite efficient.
Plus you probably have a boatload of thermal mass so it probably holds temps rock solid (is my guess)

Distilling has taught me that the word efficiency has a few different meanings....within the context that we are now discussing,,I don't view the word as negative at all.....

When my system is primed/equalized it is very stable but does require the better part of an hour to get there. But doing so allows for rapid collection.....
I am BTW speaking about collecting at high ABV......I much prefer to reflux less and collect at a less efficient 89-90% for my personal stock.

[LWTCS]

Rather than theoretical plates we could have theoretical cycles per hour? TCH

Interesting,,,,, and I love it .

[LWTCS]

rockchucker22 wrote:Rather than theoretical plates we could have theoretical cycles per hour? TCH



Interesting,,,,, and I love it .

I am reminded of Loneswingers calculator that he built to calc RR and liquid volumes......hmmmm.

[LWTCS]

He resisted in the beginning,,,,but then the light in his head went off.......wish he were here.

[flyingdutchman]

It is interesting and part of this connects back to Myles current post on reflux return. I would think to build some form of calculator you would need to know..
1) How much distillate is returned as reflux (vs collected) and...
2) How far down the column it travels before being vaporized again.
I mean if it only "sees" half the plates that makes a big difference.
Thats why I feel if you really want to calculate how efficient your plates are, turn off the active reflux. Its just way easier to figure out. Now with X + # plates (or thumpers ) +1 (for boiler) and Y = thoertical plates (calculated based wash ABV vs distillate ABV) you get...
Percent efficiency = (X/Y) x 100

[flyingdutchman]

LOL,
I only kiss two things and even then I got strictly rules I go by...

1 has to be over 5 pounds
The other has to be under 250