Some questions about column width and height

[Evan]

I have a 50'' column of 2'' copper that I use for making neutral. I have read that I could improve efficiency by increasing the width of my column to 3 inches. Is the efficiency gained due entirely to the increased surface area inside the column? How much does height come into play? The volume of a 2'' x 50'' column is about 157 cubic inches, while a 25'' column of 3'' copper is roughly 176 cubic inches. Could I expect the same efficiency from both columns, more or less? What if I went with 30'' of 4 inch copper @ 377 cubic inches?

[Hound Dog]

Rule of thumb is height equals purity and diameter equals speed.

Your 50" x 2" column will make a fine neutral. A 3" column the same height will make it twice as fast.

[bearriver]

Hound dog is spot on.

There are calculators on the parent site that you can play with to see how the numbers work out. I have found them to be quite accurate.

[wv_cooker]

As the diameter increases the height of the column increases for purity. The larger diameter columns have faster take off rates. Check out the calculators on the parent site. The volume of a column does not increase efficiency per se. Type of packing also has an effect on efficiency of purity. Hope this helps.

[Evan]

Thanks for the quick replies. I've used the calculators and played around with different heights and widths to get approx. number of plates and purity. My main problem is that with 50'' of packed column my rig is over 7 feet tall. I need a step ladder to adjust reflux and that's a pain in the ass. I was hoping cut the packed column to 30'' of 3 inch or 4 inch pipe. According to the calculator 2'' x 50'' = 12 plates with a HEPT of .111 and 4'' x 30'' = 9.8 plates and an HEPT of .087. Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure how significant the difference in those figures is.

[googe]

As the diameter increases the height of the column increases for purity. The larger diameter columns have faster take off rates. Check out the calculators on the parent site. The volume of a column does not increase efficiency per se. Type of packing also has an effect on efficiency of purity. Hope this helps.

Spot on mon

[wv_cooker]

Thanks for the quick replies. I've used the calculators and played around with different heights and widths to get approx. number of plates and purity. My main problem is that with 50'' of packed column my rig is over 7 feet tall. I need a step ladder to adjust reflux and that's a pain in the ass. I was hoping cut the packed column to 30'' of 3 inch or 4 inch pipe. According to the calculator 2'' x 50'' = 12 plates with a HEPT of .111 and 4'' x 30'' = 9.8 plates and an HEPT of .087. Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure how significant the difference in those figures is.

Think about using something like lava rock as packing. cheap as chips and folks are having good luck out of it. In the original thread Mash Rookie achieved azeotrope with just 30" of packing in a 4" column.

Edit: a quick little lesson I hope helps understand. HETP stands for Height Equivalent to a Theoretical Plate the general consensus is that it takes 15 plates or redistillations to reach 96.5% ABV or what is called azeotrope. It takes 40 plates or redistillations to reach absolute purity or at least the best we can possibly hope for. So purity is basically a perceived taste of the individual. %ABV however can be reached pretty accurately. When I used the calc's to do my first LM it said with 36" of copper packing in a 2" column I would have around the equivalency of close to 9 plates and be able to hit 94.5% ABV. I built the column and hit 95% ABV consistently do to the cooling efficiency of my condenser and the slow way I ran my rig the outcome was quite tasty as a neutral in my taste buds and everybody in my circle of family and friends. So it can be done without ladders with a good understanding of how it works. Hope this helps.

[Hound Dog]

I work off the ladder and yes it is a pain in the ass. If you go shorter you will need to reflux it more and run slower. It will also be a little touchier. If you are going to run 4" with packing, keep in mind the cost of fittings and you will need a bit of power to drive it. It will put out a nice volume though. You may consider putting your valve below your liebig as Rad suggests. People will worry about smearing but really, running a 4" your volume will wash that out pretty quick. That way you won't have to be up and down the ladder. I have thought about doing this to my 3" but have not gotten to it.

[googe]

A cm would be more user friendly with regards to climbing a ladder, you wouldn't need to lol. Plus one on what cooker said. I still think people over build/think things though, I build a 1.5" bok ages ago that was about 50cm talk with no packing but had a little sort of plate in the bottom and it pulled 93%, but deathly slow lol. I'd go 4" if you want speed!. I did this one a while back, was easy to reach the valve. http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 17&t=42591

[bearriver]

I work off the ladder and yes it is a pain in the ass.

+1 so do I, and it is a total pain in a arse to constantly climb back up and down to check temps or adjust a valve. It's even more unfortunate because I don't have as high HETP as I would like. As such I
will likely be adding even more height ... That is, if switching to lava rock doesn't end up getting me where I want to be first.

Googe also makes a good point. If I did this again it would have been a 4" and not 3", to cut spirit run time down.

[Prairiepiss]

Add a plated section below the packed column. Cut the packed column down by half. Get a increase in take off speed by three times. And make achieving azyo much easier. All in a single run of a 10% ABV wash. See my fu man thread for more info.

I just think if you are going to take the money and time to build a 3" to replace your 2". The money and time would be better off spent towards adding a plate or two.

If I can get 95% at 3 lt an hour. With one plate and 12" of packing. One plate and 25" of packing should do what ever you want it to. 3 lt an hour is plenty fast. Sometimes I think it might be to fast for a keg boiler.

[bearriver]

I know what my next project is gonna be. Thanks for the advice PP, you da man!

[wv_cooker]

I have to agree PP that 3 liters an hour is plenty fast for the hobby level, I see some flute runners with up to 4 and 5 liters per hour, we have to realize that most of us use a keg and a couple hours or even 3 is not bad for a good run. One thing we need to realize is the parent site information has been there for years and some of it is old and outdated. It is an excellent resource for learning how things work and getting the principles and theory's down.

From there read up on PP's fu man chu, personally I think one of the most innovative methods of building a shorter column that will make about anything you want now a days. I here discussions of valves and have built and run them but what about the new type cm's no valves needed, can be run as a true pot by just not turning on the water to the dephlegmater. how about a modular flute, remove a couple plates and run 2 or 3 with a packed section to reach azeotrope?

Read up on Mash Rookies packing thread, see what packing's are available now a days that might be more efficient, hell just shorten the columns and run a little slower to achieve the same ABV. The point is there is not much reason to be distilling from a ladder now a days. the information is within the threads of this forum to accomplish anything you wish in the distilling hobby. It has taken me almost 2 years of studying day and night to feel like I can make what I want now and have become a pretty able newb at the hobby. I still have lot's to learn and do so everyday.

I now have a flute almost finished, a 3" CM, am considering a 3" LM/VM that can actually be ran as a pot still without reflux. I have had one flute and an LM that burned in our house fire a few month's ago. But the point is where will your imagination take you with the information available in the threads of this forum? No need for ladders my feet have never left the ground while distilling! Hope this helps!

[Odin]

If you invest in some new SPP packing, you do not have to replace your column, but will be able to improve performance dramatically. My 2 incher spits out 4.5 liters of pure azeo per hour. Now that's an integrated & automated system, but with just SPP and manual control, and you taking it a bit slower, 3 liters per hour should not be a problem at all.

Regards, Odin.

[Prairiepiss]

I can run a 10 to 12 gallon batch. Pulling 95% ABV off. In around 4 hours. Actually less. That's from fill to drained ready for the next run. Any faster and I wouldn't be able to keep up with switching jars. LOL I could actually run faster. Especially if I wanted a lower ABV product. But I don't like to rush through a run. That's when mistakes are made. So I think 3 lt an hour for a hobby still. Is about the best speed. And is about equal to a good pot still speed.

Now I don't recommend cutting your packed column down as much as i have. My personal thoughts are. A 24" packed column and a plate or two. Is a perfect combo. Maybe make the packed column modular so it can be split in half at 12". For use in flavored single runs. On rum and or whiskey. But if you are looking for a neutral. 24" of packed and a plate or two. Would give you a great neutral.

I agree there is no reason to need to use a ladder.

I still question using lava rock on a column smaller then 3". Even though I have yet to try lava rock in my column. I plan to some day. The reports from others suggest. Structured packing like copper or stainless scrubbers. Are still the best for that size. Not counting SPP packing. If you can get it. It's a better choice. So until I experiment with lava rock in 2". I will still advise against it. Or I see a lot of good reports from others using it.

And structured packing needs to be just right. And not something that can easily be described in a forum. To loose it doesn't perform. To tight its slow and doesn't perform. Along with flooding issues. Finding the sweet spot can be a little dificult. Trial and error. Is the best method. To find what it right for your still.

[Prairiepiss]

If you invest in some new SPP packing, you do not have to replace your column, but will be able to improve performance dramatically. My 2 incher spits out 4.5 liters of pure azeo per hour. Now that's an integrated & automated system, but with just SPP and manual control, and you taking it a bit slower, 3 liters per hour should not be a problem at all.

Regards, Odin.

I would agree with you. But cost and availability is the biggest hurdle with SPP.
If I could afford it. Or make it. I would be using it.

[wv_cooker]

I have ran and tested lava rock in columns from 8" to 36" tall x 2" diameter and posted the results in a thread that googe started. Like all other packings lava rock needs to be structured to fit a 2" column. I used knickel and dime size pieces and packed them so as not to have a lot of channeling. There were also several others in the same thread that reported excellent results in a 2" column.

And yes SPP is another great packing for 2 and 3 inch columns as Odin has proven time and again as well as dad 300 and others sorry to have left you out odin. Many ways to skin a cat and keep your feet on the floor!

[Odin]

No problemo!

To the OP: please know that both lava rock, SPP and a bubble cap under the column will improve output dramatically. Please also know a bubble cap and a lava rock filled (shorter) column work together nicely. SPP and a bubble cap do not work well together. SPP needs a relatively wet environment and a bubble cap underneath an SPP packed column will provide that column with relatively high abv. Due to SPP's effectiveness, you will create ethanol blockage in just centimeters. So it is either a bubble ball or SPP, but never both.

Mr. P is very right about SPP being expensive and that it is hard to get by. If you can make you own (DAD can help you out, maybe), that would be great! Well, if you want to persue SPP to start with.

Regards, Odin.

[Prairiepiss]

Minime had good results with a bubble ball and SPP.

And I must have missed the lava rock thread you speak of wv. I will have to read it. I have been slacking a lot lately. I use to read just about every post. But I have to much on my plate to do that any more. I have missed a lot in the last year or so.

[Prairiepiss]

To the OP: please know that both lava rock, SPP and a bubble cap under the column will improve output dramatically. Please also know a bubble cap and a lava rock filled (shorter) column work together nicely.

Agreed. There are many ways to improve a stills performance. Other then making it taller and or bigger round.

I think the making it taller and or bigger round. Is an outdated method. We should be working towards making them more compact. Size is part of efficiency in my book.

Using a ladder to run a still. Is Mich like collecting product on the floor. Who wants to do that? I collected on the floor for a long time. What a pita. Will never do that again. And taller just makes it that much more unsafe.

[bearriver]

Using a ladder to run a still. Is Mich like collecting product on the floor. Who wants to do that? I collected on the floor for a long time. What a pita. Will never do that again. And taller just makes it that much more unsafe.

I do both and greatly dislike it. The parrot drain is 8" off the floor and the output is more like 18". Next time I'm spending $ on the still, I'll be addressing both of those jacked up issues before anything else. ...

Edit: It works great in pot mode however. Only chest high tall, and I collect at waist level.

[BigSwede]

This is a great thread, and I really like the notion of "Bigger, larger, taller not always better, Let's focus on increasing efficiency in a small package." Lots to think about. PP, love the Fu Man" build, way out of the box, very cool.

My boiler (milk can) has a 3" tri-clamp take-off. The rest of my build is all 2". I was going to simply use a 3" to 2" SS adapter, but now I'm leaning towards a 3" copper section (or 4") with a bubble plate; that feeds a short packed column, topped with my MixMaster hybrid.

The notion of a still only 36" or so tall, yet still delivering performance, is very appealing to me for a number of reasons.

Would there be any issues of a bubble plate topped with a shorter scrubby-packed column? Not yet a fan of lava rock, although maybe later?

[googe]

2-3 plates under 30cm of lava gives me 90-94% at 2-2.2lph single run and very clean

[wv_cooker]

This is a great thread, and I really like the notion of "Bigger, larger, taller not always better, Let's focus on increasing efficiency in a small package." Lots to think about. PP, love the Fu Man" build, way out of the box, very cool.

My boiler (milk can) has a 3" tri-clamp take-off. The rest of my build is all 2". I was going to simply use a 3" to 2" SS adapter, but now I'm leaning towards a 3" copper section (or 4") with a bubble plate; that feeds a short packed column, topped with my MixMaster hybrid.

The notion of a still only 36" or so tall, yet still delivering performance, is very appealing to me for a number of reasons.

Would there be any issues of a bubble plate topped with a shorter scrubby-packed column? Not yet a fan of lava rock, although maybe later?

No issues with a ball and copper packing at all.

[Prairiepiss]

Now I can't take any credit for thinking up a plate under a packed column. LWTCS is more of the starter of that. I just took a little different path. To try to prove some things. And build something cool. LOL

[wv_cooker]

Well in this day and age whatever you can think of that you might think is new has probably been done before. And yes LWTCS has done much work in the field of thumpers in a column. Shucks he even learned some carpentry work as we all recall LOL. But jokes aside that is kind of the point behind what we are saying, instead of just choosing something that is outdated and throwing it together, take some time to look around and see what others have done, learn the theories, then let your imagination run wild to see what you really want to build. Then put a mustache on it and you can be as cool as PP LOL.

[Odin]

Yes! That moustache is a prerequisite!

Odin.

[Evan]

Wow, thanks for all the information. If you use a packed column definitely give lava rock a try. It's cheap enough to replace every spirit run and it outperforms everything else I've tried. I'm sold on trying a plate at the bottom of a shorter column. Imagine getting a clean neutral from a rig you can see the top of! Does anyone see a problem using a short 4x2 reducer directly below a bubble plate to connect the boiler? Would choking or flooding be an issue?

[bearriver]

Does anyone see a problem using a short 4x2 reducer directly below a bubble plate to connect the boiler? Would choking or flooding be an issue?

Seen it done and work fine. I dont think it should be a problem as long as the 2" reducer is unrestricted by anything like mesh.

[googe]

How would you connect the column to the plate top area?, piece of 4"?. I did a reducer still a while back, worked well, but not seeing what the plate was doing was hard cause it was my first plated still. Always wanted to try just one plate clamped together with 2 reducers, like the pic, but have a 2" column above instead of other plates. Only thing you need to worry about is making your downcomer short enough to fit in where the reducer lip angles down to 2". If I'm understanding what you want