Home Distiller

External reflux return pathway version

In the pictures you posted hookline, where does the vapor out go to? is it kind of a pressure release?

The vapour goes out to the right. That square with a cross is a gate valve to control how much vapour is taken out.

That's a drain valve. To take off. Heads or. Booze like a boka...

What they said. I didn't draw in the rest of the standard VM vapour arm with product condenser, hanging off the output side of the valve.

Far as I know nobody has built one of these.

thisguy wrote:In the pictures you posted hookline, where does the vapor out go to? is it kind of a pressure release?

Here is a drawing.

Very nice drawings! Good stuff right there.

Cheers

I am in the process of building the " all in one slant plate head" similar to your diagram, but without the reflux return line (is it really necessary when the reflux will just overflow the bottom plate internally ?). Below the dephlegmator I will install a centering ring.

Can you point me to a member who has built or used this design?
A search has not turned anything up.

Thanks and cheers.

Schroeder wrote:I am in the process of building the " all in one slant plate head" similar to your diagram, but without the reflux return line (is it really necessary when the reflux will just overflow the bottom plate internally ?). Below the dephlegmator I will install a centering ring.

Can you point me to a member who has built or used this design?
A search has not turned anything up.

Thanks and cheers.

Do you have any sketches to share? What Hookline has drawn up is an LM/VM combination your are talking a dephlagmater that would be a LM/ CM if I am reading your description correctly.

The diagram I refer to is on page 31 of the PDF file posted by Hookline.
The all-in-one has LM, CM, and VM capability
Below the slant-plates and vapour takeoff is the dephlegmator I refer to labelled " CM condenser"

What I have built so far is a 2 1/2" type L column with 36" packed column, slant-plates and a double coil reflux condenser on top (Bokakob), with the addition of a 2" vapour takeoff below the bottom plate which goes through a 2" knife gate valve to the product condenser when used as a VM still.

for the CM condenser I am starting to build a 6" x 2 1/2" shell, with 4 x 3/4 pipe for a shotgun style dephlegmator, which will be removeable via triclamp flanges.

Schroeder wrote:Can you point me to a member who has built or used this design?

Nope, far as I know nobody has built one.

HookLine wrote: Nope, far as I know nobody has built one.

....then I guess we'll see how it goes, and change it if need be.
I'll keep you posted.

I know this is an old thread, but thank you for sharing. I've got lots of ideas cooking now!

Great information on this thread. After much research on this wonderful site I have decided to spend a few extra bucks and go in direction of the Vapor Management design. I have everything I need except the Tee to the gate valve. I have been reading and reading looking for information on the benefit or draw backs to using a certain size of Tee. Cost of the Tee is an important factor, but at this point it really doesn't matter too much due to me having a great copper fitting source and it is truly all that I need to finish my build. So the question I have is, out of the 3 designs I am going to attempt to post, which design is going to produce the MOST alcohol? Which design will produce the CLEANEST alcohol? And is the difference between the 3 significant enough to even matter? Because then it would come down to cost. A 1 inch tee is way cheaper that a two inch tee. But the goal for me is to produce a very clean liquor in a reasonable amount of time. I am sure the information about the difference of size is on here some where but I haven't found it in many days of searching. I like the thought of the 1 inch tee because it seems like it would be easier to add a drip ring. But again, I just want to use what works the best and have no regrets. I appreciate any guidance.

The grey piece in between column and the head is a tri-clover flange. My column is 40 inches long and will be packed with copper or SS scrubbies. The gate valve is a 1 inch SS. The condenser is 46 inches long. Let me know if any other information is needed.

Thanks

Gundar wrote:Cost of the Tee is an important factor [...] A 1 inch tee is way cheaper that a two inch tee.

A 1" tee will act as a venturi and (if I calculated this right, I have been wrong before ) 2 Kw (90 l/min vapor) will cause an underpressure of 5 Pa at the take-off point.
10 cm of Ethanol vapor (it's heavier then air) result in a pressure of 0.2 Pa. Instead of vapor coming out air will be sucked in.

That stillhead looks similar to what i was planing to do. Only exeption would be the LM plate is about 20mm above the VM takeoff.
It would be a minor conversion of what i already have. And it would give me the opportunity to draw of heads with the LM section.
Furthermore i expect the LM plate to aid the vaporflow into the VM, thus a higher output.
I go with only one LM plate, cause my RC has a deflectorplate that directs the reflux into the middle of the column (see picture).
Made that mod to both my coils. The larger is for my current VM setup,the smaller for a yet to come 2" reducer boka.
Long coil: 170 mm (top to end of plate) single wound. Short coil 110 mm double wound. Both Ø 6 mm copperpipe.

Edwin Croissant wrote: A 1" tee will act as a venturi and (if I calculated this right, I have been wrong before ) 2 Kw (90 l/min vapor) will cause an underpressure of 5 Pa at the take-off point.
10 cm of Ethanol vapor (it's heavier then air) result in a pressure of 0.2 Pa. Instead of vapor coming out air will be sucked in.

I have to disagree. Edwin, I have read your posts and I respect your skills, but I suspect you have never tried to create a working venturi.

That might happen if the still was open at the top and the vapor was blowing a hundred miles per hour. In reality the reflux condenser effectively plugs off that path.

Gundar, the one inch tee is your best option. It will provide the lowest minimum reflux ratio. There are hundreds of this configuration in use. They work great.

Gundar, the one inch tee is your best option. It will provide the minimum reflux ratio. There are hundreds of this configuration in use. They work great.

Too late Skow69. I went ahead and found a 2 x 2 x 1 tee for cheap and ordered it. Should still do the trick though right? If a 1" tee would work better let me know because it is not too late till things get soldered up.

Thanks

What you got is better just add a 1" centering ring between the tee and the RC. Best of both worlds.
Lower vapour speed in the tee but with a bit of back pressure to overcome density differences.
The Venturi thing is all about the vapour speed, above the tee means little.
Edwin isn't wrong as there was a great example of exactly what he's describing just recently.

Don't drop down to many sizes for the condenser too or 80% of your valve adjustment range won't do anything.

Gundar wrote:

Gundar, the one inch tee is your best option. It will provide the minimum reflux ratio. There are hundreds of this configuration in use. They work great.

Too late Skow69. I went ahead and found a 2 x 2 x 1 tee for cheap and ordered it. Should still do the trick though right? If a 1" tee would work better let me know because it is not too late till things get soldered up.

Thanks

Gundar.. You would do fine with B or C. Option B with the 1x1x1 Tee would give you a even split of vapors, but it will also increase vapourspeed as it is a restriction (by 4 times compared to the 2").
It will have a venturieffect, somehow like in a caburettor. Maybe it's not the best comparison, cause Bernoullis law and Reynolds numbers play a role too, but it will give you an idea of what happens.
Option C will also give you a even vapoursplit, but with constant vaporspeed..as there are two equal "ports" for the vapor to go.
Liquid and vapor are to a degree behaving same way, Liquid will always find "the way of least resistance", so will vapour.
Now there has been quite some writing about going with equal dimentions or restricting to a lower dimension.
A restriction as in drawing B would result in higher vapourspeed, but also causing some turbulence due to higher Reynolds numbers.
The turbulence causes the laminar flow through the tee to go into turbulent flow. Turbulent flow aids vapor to the takeoff.
C would give a more laminar flow, but due to equal "ports" a higher takeoff rate. That would allow a 50/50 split to refluxcondenser and productcondenser.
It may seem to be confusing and complicated, but it's really only natural laws. A link to Reynolds numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number
I am about to make a minor conversion to my VM head as described earlyer (ahh..modular build is awesome )
The conversion would include a LM plate and a bigger output branch, so the internal diameter of my stillhead and the takeoff branch will be equal.

We had this very same discussion recently.

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =1&t=51804

The poster started the thread because his still was built as option A and he was dissatisfied with the output. He changed it to option B and ended up happy. It's only a couple of pages. I highly recommend you read it.

I remember the thread and it was partially the cause why i wanted to modificate my current stillhead.
I'm not overly happy with my takeoff rates at the current setup, even if it puts out decent abv compared to column lenght.
(azeotropic condition is not possible)
Thank's for bringing it to my mind again, skow 69
Edit: A conversation i had with Hookline and DAD300 in this thread also made me rethink my current VM setup: http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 17&t=54153

Thanks guys for the good threads on the subject. I wish I had found them earlier. I continue to learn so much on here. I am thinking of changing my design up one more time. I will draft up a drawing and see what you guys think. I am glad used flanges all over because at least I can switch stuff out without getting the torch out.

So will I get better product at a quicker rate by using a 1 x 1 x1 to a 1" gate valve? Or should I go with a 2 x 2 x 2 to a 2" gate valve that reduces to my liebeg? My the time I finish this build I will be broke, but good and drunk.

Get back to me soon. I'm itching to get this new tee on its way to me.

1" all all round might give you a more consistent split throughout the run as the vapour densities change. The 2" tee going to a tiny reducer for the condenser in not ideal.

Better product at a higher rate has a lot more to do with column height and diameter though.


I get the feeling your asking the wrong question to the wrong people.

Can someone explain why an LM is much better than a VM for taking off heads?

Gundar.. please read my post again. I tried to explain the 50/50 vaporsplit in a head with equal ports.
I hoped you would have understood the relationship between portdiameter and flow.
It's like a waterhose, the bigger it's diameter is ..the more you can get through it. When you make a restriction (like having a 1x1x1 tee) the same amount of water would be moving quicker. If you have a bigger (diameter) hose..the same amount of water would be slower..now there is "more room". Hope my explaination makes sense for you.

Jacksonbrown..the LM is a way to draw of the heads and thereby avoid contamination of your productcondenser on the VM side.
By doing this you won't have smearing of heads in your hearts.
The VM is excellent for hearts.(that was the main reason for me at least)

Edit: Gundar..a 2" gatevalve will cost a fortune compared to a 1". It's not the size of the valve that matters. Mine is 3/4 ballvalve and performs great.

" It's the vaporsplit in the VM head that determines the reflux, thus the output."

Gundar--you'd prolly never tell the difference between them, so go with the 1" tee. Use a 1" valve as close to the column as possible, and stay 1" 'till you turn vertical.

Jacksonbrown wrote:Can someone explain why an LM is much better than a VM for taking off heads?

I've never got a good answer to that either. Near as I can figure it's just because it's taking product that has been all the way to the top of the apparatus, as opposed to product that didn't make it that high cuz it left through the VM port. And of course the uppermost fractions are the most volatile. So when you think of it like that, everything above the VM arm is kind of like a heads column. That's my theory.

That would also mean that in a VM/LM combo design it's essential to provide a dedicated reflux return path that feeds directly to the LM valve without going past the VM port.

Jacksonbrown wrote:I get the feeling your asking the wrong question to the wrong people.

.
That's just sour grapes. Get over it.

I can take off at drops per minute from a VM.

The only advantage I have ever seen for an LM is you only have to build one condenser.