Home Distiller

Good morning folks, this discussion is way over my head most of the time, but it keeps triggering questions. Couple of years ago, wife and I went to Sarasota FL, where the beach is composed mostly of silica sands so pure that at mid day at 90F degrees, you can walk barefoot across ti without getting a burning feeling on your feet. The locals told me that it is mostly a volcanic glass that washes up.

I actually watched a small child pour water into a bucket of this sand, and the water ran out the bottom nearly as fast as she poured it in the top.

Is there any reason that beach sand wouldn't make a suitable column packing? After it had been boiled and rinsed of course....

That’s an interesting question. I think even a very coarse sand would be too tight to let vapor pass and cause a choking action. It would meet the goal of having liquid flow smoothly but wont allow vapor space. We really have not answered the question yet of how dense can we pack a column before problems are encountered. The SPP is really tight and ran fast.
My glass column would help determine that one. I need to run it with a very tightly packed material to see what happens. Pea gravel? I wish I had a good source for sized pumice like Myles. I could keep going finer each run to learn the limits.

Actually MR if you want even finer stuff then you may well be able to source it. Copied off the the website:

Pumice Filtration Media
Pumice Filtration Media is used as an alternative to sand and anthracite for the treatment of potable water, sewage and industrial effluents. Pumice is also widely used in the treatment of seawater for reverse osmosis (SWRO) particularly in the Middle East. Pumice Filtration Media is manufactured in accordance with European Standard EN 12901/ 12902:1999 and British Standard BS EN 12906; “Products used for the treatment of water intended for human consumption”.

Pumice Powder
Pumice powder is used as a mild abrasive in glass treatments, electronic circuit board scrubbing, dental pastes and industrial hand cleaners. It i…
Pumice Grains

Pumice Grains are used extensively in the cosmetics industry in both facial and foot scrubs. The gentle exfoliating properties of pumice grains make them an ideal ingredient in exfoliating scrubs and cosmetic pumice…

So possibly looking at a supplier for ingredients for hand made soaps and cosmetics might be 1 possible source.

I started out using pea gravel, actually aquarium gravel, and it worked great. It comes pea sized, is cheap, and it can be crushed pretty easily using a small hammer, and screened to smaller than its sold. I used pieces of about 1/8" to 3/16" screened through a 1/4" mesh, then boiled them all for about 20 minutes....now that I think about it, I'm about ready to go back to using them as packing...I'd switched to using the copper mesh because it was lighter and at the time that was important to me.

The more I think about it I would like to look Druss' idea about expanded clay and really like FB's suggestion about sintered glass. I am going to try Myles idea and test Rockwool insulation cut into one inch squares. I will investigate what they use to make it rigid first. I will try to run some tests this weekend.

I have recently been testing a new packing material suggested here on this thread. Activated charcoal. More exactly, I purchased activated hardwood charcoal. It came in a five gallon bucket that was supposed to be one inch sized. It was 1/2/ to dust sized. $65. Here are my reasons, thoughts and results.
After recognizing that the wicking ability was more important than heat transfer I began looking at softer materials. What sounds more safe and effective than activated charcoal? We use it for filtering spirits right?

Of course my first test run was done in my glass column to observe channeling and wicking ability. I sifted the entire bucket and got enough ¼” – ½” to fill my column. (mostly ¼”) I was distracted when running so did not observe as well as I should have about time and power applied. It appeared to be as fast or faster than lava at about a gallon an hour taking off at 95%. That was as good as I got with lava in the glass column. In my insulated stainless column lava will go 96%+. My rationale is that this would go that high as well in a insulated column. Tasting seemed to show what I thought was smearing and sweet.

After test one observing wicking and channeling I wanted to go even finer of media on the second test to learn where or when choking would develop. I sifted to 1/8” and rinsed the remainder of the charcoal and poured it in. This was tighter than popcorn. Hmmm…. Maybe we could use popcorn??
I let her rip. It did great on visual performance of channeling and expected wicking. Above 18’/sec vapor speed it did start to choke at the base of the column. I stayed below that and wanted to fall asleep with the smooth almost non visual flow of the refluxing without channeling. Again take off was as expected at 95%. Second jar after heads was taken very slowly, remainder at close to a gallon an hour still at 95%. DO NOT USE IT. Even after rinsing well and running at the very slow speeds there is a very unusual sweet flavor that must be from contaminates. (even at 95%) I did not boil the charcoal. I can not tell you what it is or if it will go away.

Again, I encourage others to take up the effort to do some testing and report their results. Some have, Thank you EmptyGlass and Croweater. Now RD!
I heard from RubberDuck today. He was grinning from ear to ear wondering if he was the first to go above 96% without vacuum. Nope! But welcome to the club! Keep it sealed or loose it to the air!!
Who is next with thier efforts?

hmmm popcorn??

Got a question about my packing. I bought some copper scrubbers and boiled the bajeezus out of them. Do I need to do another cleaning run with the packing in or is boiling enough? Thank you in advance.

Redeye wrote:Got a question about my packing. I bought some copper scrubbers and boiled the bajeezus out of them. Do I need to do another cleaning run with the packing in or is boiling enough? Thank you in advance.

That is plenty clean. If your column is clean you are good to go.

Thank you mash rookie. I had some spirits come off with some off flavors on the last batch of sf I ran I was going to save it for a spirit run with the packing to see if it would remove them and make it a little more neutral.

BoomTown wrote:I started out using pea gravel, actually aquarium gravel, and it worked great. It comes pea sized, is cheap, and it can be crushed pretty easily using a small hammer, and screened to smaller than its sold. I used pieces of about 1/8" to 3/16" screened through a 1/4" mesh, then boiled them all for about 20 minutes....now that I think about it, I'm about ready to go back to using them as packing...I'd switched to using the copper mesh because it was lighter and at the time that was important to me.

I am convinced that coarse perlite will give similar results to lava rock but is much lighter and still pretty cheap. It is basically expanded volcanic glass and should be free of contaminants. Has many nooks and crannies for surface area and is used for water retention in other fields of endeavor. I am convinced that it will work. Anyhow, thanks to MR and everyone else for all the great information in this thread. Try perlite MR, I swear it will work great.

http://www.idahominerals.com/perlite-basics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

hey that stuff sounds interesting , not sure if it can be got here but it surely sounds like a goer

Perlite is light when dry, but gets pretty heavy when wet.

It is not a consistent size, so it will need to be filtered (screened) to get a more regular size.

Main problem is likely to be that it is not able to take much weight on it before it crushes. So you may have to have is 2-4 short separate sections of packing, not resting on each other.

Great link. It does not look like the soft stuff they used to sell for mixing with soil to retain water. Was that stuff expanded? It says it is "foamy" Does that mean soft or foamy appearance? Looks likle something I would like to try. I have worked with small size. It may work.

Expanded perlite exhibits very low thermal conductivity, low sound transmission, high fire resistance, a large surface area and low moisture retention. It is chemically inert, sterile, non-toxic and non-fibrous, free of organic impurities, and has a neutral pH.

PNW Company too.

My experience: as to 'crush' factor, considering the scale that a home type column is, this will probably not be a factor.

the weight issues seems to be linked to moisture that gets trapped in the material....in our case, the alcohal moving up the column, and part of why I moved on is I think that's a significant issue....think of it as like ABV, and subtract the weight of the stone....

Boom

I hope one of you guys run this stuff , providing it doesn't crush and choke it really does sound like it could have the potential to be the next good thing in packing

Coarse or Super Coarse would work best to avoid potential flooding...

I'm liking http://www.walmart.com/ip/Aqua-Culture- ... escription" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

or

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Aqua-Culture- ... iewedItems" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

After a little Google search I drove down to the local Home Depot. They only had Miracle grow enhanced perlite. It is a seasonal item for them. They will have it stocked in a few weeks. It looked pretty fine in what I saw. A large bag is only $15 so maybe there will be enough after sizing to fill a four inch column. There brand is called "Coarse" but customer comment noted it was small on their website.
I will do some more searching. It is next on my hit list.

A few pages back there was discussion on expanded clay pellets. I used them for years for hydroponic gardening. They have great wicking and retention properties. Not much effort is required to pulverize. Not very uniformed once broken down, would definetly need to screen afterwards. For my applications they were used whole once rinsed. 50 ltr bag used to run about 30 bucks 12 yrs ago.

Hi Mash,
This is some amazing stuff you guys have done. Perhaps to really compare these new packing materials (at least intially) you might want to compare their HETP's. You would then be able put a number to it (quantify it) so you can say Exactly how much better are they and you should be able to do this in a consistent repeatable manner ? I think Max Vino has already said this but it bears repeating...

Ahhh...well this brings us to THE question...all of your graphs to find the sweet spot will relate to "your" still configuration, and the operating parameters you set, which will culminate in a % of purity. Assuming a water, sugar, yeast wash....what percent ? 90 ?...92?....95? Tell me Mash, how are you going to arrive at this number ?

Perhaps shooting for azeotrope is not the only way to evaluate these packings (or even the best). Instead might I suggest you all pick a repeatable and consistent set of parameters that any one of you could run and everyone who wanted to could repeat each others experimental runs. These would include say a fixed height of packing (not too high say around 3 theoretical plates), a fixed input of power (watts), a fixed reflux ratio (remember RR has a significant influence on HETP), a consistent wash composition and a constant column diameter.
1) # Theoretical Plates: Perhaps SS wool might be the perfect story pole by which to evaluate other packings. Note we know that SS wool has a HETP of ~0.13 M (parent site) at the correct RR. So Three plates would work out to 0.39 Meters or 15.35 inches which we could call 15 inches for simplicity.
2) Power input: If we have a constant known power input then others can exactly duplicate this and this is important in part because..
3) RR: if RR can be determined by the ratio of vapor produced vs distillate collected we can duplicate exact RR conditions by simply duplicating the power and distillate collection rates.
4) Wash composition: While we can measure and run a different wash for each packing there is some possible error here (some things could throw off the reading)and as such maybe different washes might not be the best repeatable method. Perhaps instead we could use the EXACT same wash for 2 or more packing comparisons. Say you pack the column with SS, equilibrate for 1 hour, collect (and dispose of ) the foreshots at exactly 1 drop/sec (say 100 mL), then collect just enough desired distillate at 1drop/sec to determine the percent alcohol (and thus your separation and thus the number of plates to achieve this separation). Shut down the still let it cool, return all distillate to the boiler (not foreshots), Repack with your new experimental packing, reequilibrate for 1 hour then collect at 1drop/sec just enough to determine the percent alcohol. You could repeat this multiple times for multiple packings and all the while have the SS wool run for a direct comparison. Now you can experimentally compare what kind of HETP each packing gave you.
5) Column diameter: I see some members have SPP packing. Wouldnt it be great to be able to make a direct comparison between what they got for SPP vs SS wool and what others are getting for other materials.

Note on possible error: There will be some distillate on the packing surface that you may not recover at the end of the run. That said perhaps a smaller diameter column (with less packing) to the same volume boiler have less unrecovered distillate?

This is all just a suggestion and there may be some errors in what I say please feel free to point them out. Just thought it might be cool to have some sort of exact numbers for comparison (apples to apples), that others could repeat and thus validate. Then we could even look at say cost vs effectivess for some of these new packings.

FD

Funny, I was sending you a PM while you were posting on my thread FD. Because I can easily hit pure 96% I am going at this a little different. The HETP formula and calculator on the parent site would not work for me and I was not able to repeat my math correctly. I quit making the effort to record a true HETP number that no one else on here could validate. Some day we will have to sit down with a box of pencils so you can teach me the formula.

I am going to record Reflux Ratio for conversion to HETP at a later date. I recently posted a method for calculating reflux ratio by comparing vapor volume and product take off. (I think it was on Maritimers RR thread)

I have not yet felt the need to apply the math to my testing recently just to have a number but have my notes and can when its time to sit down. My RR is quite low with lava visually judged by coolant use.

I can produce 95%+ from any wash %. Using the same packing volume and power protocols, I compare take off speeds of various packings at 96% azeotrope and note reflux coolant necessary. Some packings require greater reflux. Some wont produce high at any reflux ratio.

Welcome back! You been on vacation?
MR

Hi Mash,
Thanks! I was just goofing with other stuff My wife claims I have the attention span of an ant (LOL). So when you say

Because I can easily hit pure 96% I am going at this a little different. The HETP formula and calculator on the parent site would not work for me and I was not able to repeat my math correctly.

This is part of the reason why I advocate testing with way less packing than is normally used. If everything hits azeotrope how do we accurately judge the HETP. How about just 1 theoretical plate added to the column? In the lower range of the scale 1 plate makes a BIG (read easily discerned) difference. For anyone interested in trying this check out the calculator here : http://homedistiller.org/theory/refluxdesign/steps
Perhaps with the way you are using different grades of SS wool and treating it to maximize surface area you have a different HETP than someone using "scrubbies".

As far as RR goes Here is a graph (for everyones reading this sake) that you have probably already seen but that illustrates the effect that RR can have on HETP. I am not neccessary advocating knowing the exact RR, just duplicating the same RR for each run (no math reqd) Ps If SS wool has reported HETP of 0.13 M or 130 mm and spp has reproted HETP of ~30 mm (thats the reported numbers I have seen anyways) that's a 4 fold reduction which is pretty amazing.

I am on a mission. Again, I can not view the calculator on the link. Three diferent browsers, two different computers. I have reset my security settings and it still wont open. I am going to go get a pry bar. Arggg. Help Husker!!

Before I argue with FD a bit here about the error of his ways, I wanted to note for folks that I did find some Perlite. It seems to range from dust to 3/8".
I bought two $7 bags. After screening to size I should have enough to fill the 4" glass test column. Another affordable option??

mash rookie wrote:I am on a mission. Again, I can not view the calculator on the link. Three diferent browsers, two different computers. I have reset my security settings and it still wont open. I am going to go get a pry bar. Arggg. Help Husker!!

Before I argue with FD a bit here about the error of his ways, I wanted to note for folks that I did find some Perlite. It seems to range from dust to 3/8".
I bought two $7 bags. After screening to size I should have enough to fill the 4" glass test column. Another affordable option??

Which calculator is giving you fits...??? You should be able to download the HTML/Javascript calculators to your local PC and run them in your browser from there... This eliminates some of the security concerns associated with external web pages...

I actually don't do my testing with an ideal reflux column setup... I prefer to run in hybrid mode and use the overall outcome as my until of measure while keeping everything else the same... I use the same wash, the same heat input, the same coolant flow rate, the same take off rate (1oz per minute), and go from there... I can see variances more readily than in pure pot still or reflux column mode...

In fact I am looking around for enough marbles to do a comparison run against stainless steel scrubbers right now... Then I might try screened crushed glass using 1/4" and 3/8" screens to get a uniform size, tumbled with sand to remove any sharp edges and add a bit of texture to the smooth surfaces for improved whetting...

Hi All,
I would love to see the results of those runs!

In fact I am looking around for enough marbles to do a comparison run against stainless steel scrubbers right now... Then I might try screened crushed glass using 1/4" and 3/8" screens to get a uniform size, tumbled with sand to remove any sharp edges and add a bit of texture to the smooth surfaces for improved whetting...

It would be really cool to have some experimental comparisons to look at.

Can anyone confirm the 30 mm I saw for SPP HETP? That just seems amazingly low. I mean my math could be way off (like losing a decimal place) but it seems at least in theory you could get the same separartion from 12" of spp that you would have from 4 foot of SS scrubbers.

Mash feel free to correct me (LOL) I have been wrong in the past and I probably will be again its all good

FD I am not ready to run yet, but my modified column is ready.

I converted my 30 litre keg into a thumper by adding a vapour injection tube into the dome.


And the 3" column



52" of pumice packing with a stainless plug at each end. When I ddo get the cooling and electrics fitted it will be interesting to see how the HETP works out.

Hi Myles!
I was just PM-ing Mash about Mike Nixons paper on the vapor reflux system yesterday. I would have bet my last dollar if anyone was going to build it first, it would have to be you! That build looks great. I am seriously interested in your results. If I remember right he predicted you would need a much lower reflux ratio for identical results (5xs less?).

FD

I did some adjusting on that design and that was build some time ago. As well as the original design:

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 17&t=30437

Odin.

Hi Odin,
I apologize, I had not realized you had already built that design. Thats a cool take on Mike Nixons design and i think several people may have have speculated about exactly what you have built when they read Mike Nixons paper. I do have several questions regarding your build/thread.

1) Did you ever hear back from Mike Nixon?
2) I love the inline thumper with reflux return directly (to it), it does raise questions
3) Is the energy released from the main boiler enough to drive the system ( and control it) as Mike Nixon designed it?
4) Or is a separate (but controlable) source of heating (like a reboiler) required for it to function as designed.

Mash I apologize as what i am asking here is way off topic.
FD

One friend build a more ... Mike-like system with a separate heating system for the secundary boiler. It is to be tested soon. Another acquintance build "my" version. Power is not the issue. Just that output is somewhere between 80 and 85% abv. Trying to solve that. We think the feedforwardline works like a bypass the wrong way around a "syphon" or outlet below liquid level of the bubble ball is what's needed. Testing going on.

Not to screw up Mashes very interesting topic & thread ... maybe we should continue this "talk" in another thread?

Odin.